# [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:17:26 -0800 (PST)

```Regner,

You state ..."Also, rotation about any given axis, will be visible and
recognizable
which-ever direction you look in."..Good all I need to do is how you that there
is a rotation by definition around the ecliptic to make the case............You
claim the earth?s orbit is translational and as such no rotation exist. However
you ignore the fact that the earth is spinning every point on the earth itself
is in motion and every 24 hours midnight a observer is not just translated his
position is radially oriented to the ecliptic axis. You cannot have a
progresive radial orientation to anything and not have a rotation with it as
the axis. That is a logical contradiction. It is a radial orientation to any
thing that defines what is an axis and what is rotation. Further, it is that
radial condition that is what creates or manifest rotational effects!? I?m
attaching a new diagram I hope this helps you see that your arguments and
position employ contradictions of terms as premises.

Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:   Allen,
First I would like to clear up some terminology.
You invented "translational condition" and "rotational condition".
Are these the same as "translational/rotational movements/motions"?

I have to disagree with your statement that:
"Thre translational condition only exist on the plane to the celestial
axis not in the ecliptic axis of rotation itself!.."
* The orbit around the Sun is the translational movement, hence it
takes place in the ecliptic plane, around the Sun (but still no rotation!)
* The daily (pure) rotation is around the celestial axis, as we agree on.

Also, rotation about any given axis, will be visible and recognizable
which-ever direction you look in.

Regards,

Regner

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Quoting Allen Daves :

> Thre translational condition only exist on the plane to the celestial axis
> not in the ecliptic axis of rotation itself!..There are two aspects
> here....... ......That is the whole point of the drawings. There is a
> roational condition every 24 hours over the course of a year. (see attached)
> However in the last drawings that i provided (attached) that translational
> motion to the celestial but not in the ecliptic does not have the same effect
> as the bottom drawing. The two are not equivilent views! One is looking at
> the same rotation annauly as nightly the other is rotation on a differnt axis
> while simply looking in a different direction. The two are not equivilent and
> thereofre canont produce the same effects. You can't simply appeal to one
> then turn and focus on the other when the problems with it are pointed out.
>
>
> Regner T
> I assure you that I am not being a pedant but I have to raise another point
> with you. It concerns this para -
> It is also clear that if the camera is mounted at another angle (still
> fixed) the camera will point at great circles around the celestial poles,
> both during the day and during the year (taking pictures every [tropical]
> solar day).
>
> I have a problem with your usage of 'great circles'. Do you mean 'parallels
> of celestial latitude'? As I say, pedantry for its own sake, is petty. I ask
> because my knowledge is -- in the great scheme of things -- sketchy, and when
> confronted with something which conflicts with that present knowledge, I
> suffer the symptoms of analogously having the ground move under my feet. So
> basically -- do I have to learn something new?
> Paul D
> PS I didn't have the password for vateco!
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Regner Trampedach
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 3:49:17 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
>
> This is pretty amazing!
> First of all, the clear and short question by Jack, could have been
> answered with 12 words: "The camera positions should be the same as in
> the HC drawing." I can't actually find an answer to Jack's question
> in the 364 words that Allen just spent.
> Second, the HC part of Allen's figure:
> http://vatceo.phys.au.dk/horde/imp/message.php?index=7668
> beautifully shows what Paul, Philip and I have been trying to say for
> quite a while now, and I just can't figure out how Allen's words can
> correspond to that figure.
> It shows the camera, fixed w.r.t. the Earth, taking pictures at
> midnight, at three different points in the orbit around the Sun.
> The figure makes it clear to me, that the camera points towards Polaris
> in all three cases, throughout the year, and also that it will do so at
> any time during the day.
> It is also clear that if the camera is mounted at another angle (still
> fixed) the camera will point at great circles around the celestial poles,
> both during the day and during the year (taking pictures every [tropical]
> solar day).
> No rotation around the ecliptic axis!
> By the way - spin and rotation is the same, I have never said anything
> to the contrary. An orbit, does however, not need to involve a rotation/
> spin, but can be purely translational - as shown in Allen's figure.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Regner
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
>
> Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> >
> > The point of the non HC drawing is simply that although that is not how
> the
> > HC folk would describe the mechanics of HC, that is the only mechanics
> that
> > would allow and are capable of replicating the nightly motion in the
> annual
> > orbital motion with no other motions perceivable and no distinction
> between
> > the two! Therefore, although no one would draw the solar system that way
> > (bottom drawing) that is the only way that you can archive hiding the
> annual
> > motion behind the nightly and making them indistinguishable from each
> other.
> > The point of the top drawing is that it cannot and will not replicated the
> > nightly without demonstrating a secondary annual motion. As I said the two
> > drawings are not equivalent. The reason the top drawing is not capable of
> > hiding the annual motion in the nightly (as the bottom can and would) is
> that
> > rotation is s function of x& y vectors around the z axis. If the two
> vectors
> > and z axis do not say constant then they cannot produce the same thing as
> > the nighty rotation where all three variables do stay constant. You see
> the
> > slight of hand that HC uses is the failure to point out that not only is
> the
> > orbital motion of the celestial axis transnational but they imply that the
> > annual orbit itself rides the 23 degree plane (That is why there examples
> > try to emphasize and get you to look at and only focus on the change in
> > latitude of the camera around the earth annually and how that "rides" the
> > 23.44 degree celestial plane) The top drawing depicts a camera that
> rotates
> > in one direction while looking at another. The problem is it is backwards
> > from what it would have to be it were to hid the annual motion. It rotates
> in
> > a different direction then the nightly while looking at the nightly. While
> > the bottom drawing is a camera the is looking at the nightly rotation
> while
> > in a orbit that also mimics the nightly rotation. The two drawings are not
> > equivalent and only the bottom one is and would hide and make the annual
> and
> > nightly indistinguishable from each other.
> >
> >
> > I attach it here again for any late comers.......
> >
> > Jack Lewis wrote:
> > Dear Allen,
> > Just a point of clarification. In the 'non HC' drawing the camera is in
> one
> > position whilst the earth rotates below it. Is this deliberate or should
> the
> > camera positions be the same as the 'HC' drawing? This would mean that the
> > ONLY difference between the two drawings is the angle of the ecliptic with
> > respect to the stars.
> >
> > Jack
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Allen Daves
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:44 AM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you
> >
> >
> > One last thing, for the evening.....They say a picture speaks a thousand
> > words...... Hopefully you will all be able to see this....brand new
> attached
> > diagram. it illustrates the fundamental error in your argument...........
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
>

```