[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:51:55 -0000
That's OK Paul. It's just that to me it is simple. Why don't you address
Neville's drawing and his explanation? It is a step-by-step statement of two
things that appear to be happening at the same time. It will make a lot more
sense to me if someone uses his or my drawing to show where our drawings or the
explanation is wrong. Providing new drawings that look graphically different,
even if saying the same thing, is just confusing.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Jack L
I've looked again at your drawing and I still don't get it. I don't
understand how it is that others do, especially J A whose insight I've had
occasion to admire. I'm sorry you don't like my honest opinion but you made a
global request. And it's not semantics -- it's terminology.
I don't recall anyone responding at the time so I'll give you -- and anyone
else who wants a piece of me -- another chance to criticise my thoughts on the
matter. I don't like reposting but I've attached for the second time my drawing
'ThePlank.png'. Would anyone who finds this illustration difficult to
understand, please respond. I happen to think this is streets ahead in the race
to depict what heliocentrists think on this matter.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 8:43:12 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Dear Paul,
I haven't read your critique because (A) My drawing IS meant to show the
heliocentric model and the alleged two simultaneous rotations as described by
Neville's drawing. (B) In your criticism of my terminology I am assuming you
are unable to see what I'm obviously explaining even if it is wrong. Everyone
else seems to understand what I was getting at. Please spare me the semantics.
All who are checking my drawing: Please address your technical questions to
Neville whose drawing I attempted to show more graphically. The only change I
would make at this point is that I have indicated rotation of the ecliptic
plane. This is wrong although I doubt it would change anything the gist of my
illustration.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Jack L
I've been thinking about your drawing too and am as puzzled as Marc V. This
drawing seems to be some sort of hybrid of both HC and GC systems. And your
later post says that the drawing is what you claim heliocentrists claim which I
for one disclaim.
I see a number of terminology problems here -- let me address these first.
[1] The Earth does not rotate on two axes -- it rotates on one axis and
revolves around the Sun (surprisingly not shown). [2] The word 'traverse' means
to cross, to follow a zig-zag course (several places).
Now problems of description. [3] It is not clear to me what is '..the
world...'. If the green circles are a spot on the world how then does its
surface encompass the plane of the ecliptic? [4] Earth rotates once in ~ 23h
56m not one (24h) day. [5] The Earth's orbit lies on the plane of the ecliptic,
the 'axis' of which is the NEP not the NCP (nice to have the company --
welcome!) This is the axis about which the Earth revolves -- a circular
translation. There is only one ecliptic plane -- not four, not 365.25 -- one!
[6] That one pole circles another is just a figure of speech in relative terms
used for illustrative purposes only. The stars are stationary. [7] As above --
there is only one rotation. You cannot compare radial velocity with
translational velocity. 'Happening on very different time scales' would be
closer.
I really don't know why you guys are so hung up over these issues -- the
whole thing is dead simple. There are two motions -
1. The Earth revolves around the Sun describing an ellipse on the
ecliptic plane. The Sun -- the centre of mass of Sun/Earth -- is at one focus
of the ellipse. This focus is also on the ecliptic plane. A line orthogonal to
this plane passing through the Sun is known as the Ecliptic Pole. It points in
a constant direction.
2. The Earth rotates on its axis (you can't have one without the other --
is this a redundancy I wonder?) once in ~ 23h 56m. The axis of this rotation is
inclined to the plane of the ecliptic. To a first approximation, there is no
precession. This axis is thus pointing always in one direction. It is called
the Celestial Pole and is inclined to the plane of the ecliptic at an angle of
~ 66.5 deg or 23.5 deg from the ecliptic pole.
3. These motions do not interact. The Earth's axis of rotation could be
inclined at any angle to the ecliptic plane and it would have no effect on its
revolution. (See Uranus for example).
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
