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

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:04:59 -0800 (PST)

```Answers are easy to find, asking the right questions is the real problem for us
all.....The camera is in the same relitive position on both diagrams..... .I
did answer his question just not the way you like. I'll summarize  for you: The
difference is not so much the angle of the ecliptic (because no one would model
HC that way) the difference is the angle of real rotation between the two.
There is a difference between looking at the axis of rotation and just looking
in a different direction while in rotation on a different axis!

Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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...........
>
>
>

```