[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:43:12 -0000
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
Other related posts:
