As Dodwell's curve is extrapolated from the most recent data i.e. 1850 and then further back 1700?s 1600?s 13?00 ect he is essentially working backwards. In this case, I guess really 1850 would be his "start" point. Therefore his extrapolated curve is still valid and useful for 1. Demonstrating astronomical and architectural reconciliation between observations and calculation. 2. Logarithmic sin of a table top not free floating gyroscopic motion. The Universe is attached to the earth not the other way around. This curve in my opinion, Is one of the strongest proofs as so far as you can prove anything that the heavens not the earth revolve around a fixed point in this case the earth. This can be deduced via the following logic. The Star trails are due to either the spin of the earth or the spin of the universe. In a-centric cosmology all spinning bodies behaves as free floating gyroscopes, because although a body may orbit another it is still free floating. The curve shows tre pidation of a table top gyroscope. No such movement can exist in a-centric cosmology for earth. Therefore we are only left with one other possibility. The universe is spinning around & attached to a fixed earth. At some point the universe?s spin was disturb, the curve clearly demonstrates that it behaved as a table top gyroscope therefore it must be the universe not the earth?s motion. Only a Geo-static model could demonstrate this. Personally I don?t think it an accident that we have ~3.5 thousand years all over the world observations, made by professionals. Clearly, in my opinion , God is showing us something. The only alternative to this is to ignore the evidence, which is what most have done. Allen Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:In Ch1 Part 2 of Dodwell?s work he shows the Ecliptic having disturbed from its original position and back to it start potion . He admits he is assuming the start point. Dodwel states that the recovery is "partial" recovery to ~1850 and states what he thinks is the "probable" starting point because it is not known if the original & final ecliptics were any different. However if the recovery of a table top gyroscope is completed its recovery. That is to say no longer trying to recover then is probable that it has recovered to tits original position. Ironically these observations demonstrate that the movement would have to be attributed to the Heavens and not the earth, because a table top gyroscopic motion is impossible in a-centric cosmology. It does however makes perfect sense & only in Geocentric / Static cosmology Allen Philip Stott wrote: Hi Neville, I don't see how Dodwell's work gives the same ecliptic before and after. I do see how his curve can converge onto Newcome's curve, but that is not the same thing. The earth is "hanging on nothing". As far as I can make out it is at the centre of the firmament, space, the aether - which has a fundamental 24 hour rotation period (day defined before the sun makes it observable to a limited range of senses). It could be reaction with the firmament which keeps the earth stable. The ecliptic seems to depend on some kind of rocking of the earth relative to the firmament. This is changing and has changed in the past. It appears to have changed from very little to twenty odd degrees in two thousand and some years. To know whether it is the entire firmament which is rocking or the earth rocking in the firmament (or a combination) we could only know if the Scriptures told us. I see the scriptures clearly deny a daily rotation and a circuit around anything. Most things "hanging" are subject to small oscillations on occasions, so I am not sure that we can rule out minor oscillations for the earth. As for the fact that plants are designed for seasons. How much of that could be due to adaptation? Plants, even more than animals, have astounding ability to adapt to changed conditions. The range of possible variation designed into plants and animals in the beginning was probably greater than remains today, mutations having almost certainly damaged many possibilities. This astounding versatility in the living world allowed the theory of evolution to confuse many intelligent observers. Blessings Philip ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Neville Jones To: Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 11:16 AM Subject: [creation] Re: Precipitation > Hi Philip, > > What I find difficult with the heavy dew idea is that the climate was so vastly improved before the Flood that we did not need houses. Sleeping outside with heavy dew at night/morning would have been most uncomfortable, and would have led to serious illnesses. > > As I have said to Malcolm Bowden, George Dodwell's idea of the "axis" of the World being knocked off true is clearly wrong, since the World "cannot be moved." Also, there is no doubt that plants and animals are geared around a four-season cycle, particularly so with flowers, trees and crops. They were designed that way. So I do not accept that the ecliptic was originally equatorial. > > I tend to favour the pumping action for water returning to the heads of rivers. > > Yours in Christ, > > Neville.