[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.  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:52 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing

  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: