[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:08:46 -0800 (PST)
NO you can not, and that is the rub. HC claims there is no difference between
what the annual motion and the nightly motion produce. So how are you going to
show the motion, when HC itself calims there is no differnece between the
two..? However, HC can not do that the way HC is modeled. That is our point!
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jack L
This heliocentrist is NOT saying that the second (annual revolution) motion
cannot be detected. I have been describing how it CAN be detected for a year
and a half but unfortunately this seems to be in most everyone's dark cupboard
into which none of you seem to have the courage look.
I've tried to remove the subject from this emotional exclusion zone by
shifting the phenomenon to Mars but that didn't work either. See several short
posts "Translational motion of Mars".
Egocentrism? Spelling error or is there a point here that I am missing?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 19 November, 2007 9:08:38 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Dear All,
In the heliocentric model it would appear that there are two movements taking
place, which is not disputed, but the observations support only one movement-
egocentrism. The heliocentrists seem to be saying that the second movement
cannot be detected for reasons I do not understand. Will it help if I ask the
question, why can't it be detected if it exists? We can't see the moon turning
actually but we know it does simply by the observations and dynamics involved.
Therefore I would expect the helios to be able to do the same.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:52 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Ja,
I agree with your drawings... Again no one is debating the fact that the
annual motion will record the nightly motion....that is a FACT!...however it is
also a fact that a secondary motion would and must be present that is not a
assumption that is a physical fact, just as in the case of a orbital
sander........Your conclusion which states just the opposite is an assumption
by definition.....What do you not understand?
more in blue....
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
