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

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:00:29 +1100

J A, the point is that in the bottom figure, the two axes are coincident,
in the top figure they are not. You can't change that by any tilting of
the figures. I fully support Allen here.

   Regards,

      Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> No they are not the same..there is a differnce in rotaion aound the celestial
> axis (bottom) and just looking at the celestial axis while in rotation
> (TOP)..one is translational the other is not........rotation is a fuction of
> xy around z thoes variable are not identical in both diagrams........look
> again they are not the same....I think i hjust found where the difficulty for
> you is..
>    
>    
>   
> j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>     May I point out that if the basline is zero - then both drawings are
> exactly the same. 
>   
> Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>      
>   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 <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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...........
> 
>    
> 
>     
> ---------------------------------
>   Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 
> 


Other related posts: