[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:39:03 -0800 (PST)

There is a difference between looking at the axis of rotation and just looking 
in a different direction while in rotation on a axis! the Camera in the top 
translates around the celestial axis the bottom one rotates around the 
celestial axis in the same way the other diagram does 24 hour v 23.56 hour one.
  Rotation is a function of real function of vectors and variables not just 
arbitrary "points of view"..I have tried to outline that for you. 
  However, the most interesting thing I find is that if someone accepts that 
those two are not equivalent then how do you argue that the top one produces 
the same view as the bottom one? The bottom one will produce indistinguishable 
nightly and annual star trails that is what you have to accomplish in order to 
make HC tenable. But the bottom will not show the same thing as the top the top 
is HC..?......How can the top one produce indistinguishable star trails nightly 
and annual if the are not equivalent?............. The difference is one of 
looking at the real rotational motion v just looking in a different direction 
while in a real rotation
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  How do you tell your diagrams apart if you make the baseline zero?

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     No they are not the 
same..there is a differnce in rotaion aound the celestial axis (bottom) and 
just looking at the celestial axis while in rotation (TOP)..one is 
translational the other is not........rotation is a fuction of xy around z 
thoes variable are not identical in both diagrams........look again they are 
not the same....I think i hjust found where the difficulty for you is..
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    May I point out that if the basline is zero - then both drawings are 
exactly the same. 
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  The point of the non HC drawing is simply that although that is not how the 
HC folk would describe the mechanics of HC, that is the only mechanics that 
would allow and are capable of replicating the nightly motion in the annual 
orbital motion with no other motions perceivable and no distinction between the 
two! Therefore, although no one would draw the solar system that way (bottom 
drawing) that is the only way that you can archive hiding the annual motion 
behind the nightly and making them indistinguishable from each other. The point 
of the top drawing is that it cannot and will not replicated the nightly 
without demonstrating a secondary annual motion. As I said the two drawings are 
not equivalent. The reason the top drawing is not capable of hiding the annual 
motion in the nightly (as the bottom can and would) is that rotation is s 
function of x& y vectors around the z axis. If the two vectors and z axis do 
not say constant then they cannot produce the same thing as
 the nighty rotation where all three variables do stay constant. You see the 
slight of hand that HC uses is the failure to point out that not only is the 
orbital motion of the celestial axis transnational but they imply that the 
annual orbit itself rides the 23 degree plane    (That is why there examples 
try to emphasize and get you to look at and only focus on the change in 
latitude of the camera around the earth annually and how that "rides" the 23.44 
degree celestial plane) The top drawing depicts a camera that rotates in one 
direction while looking at another. The problem is it is backwards from what it 
would have to be it were to hid the annual motion. It rotates in a different 
direction then the nightly while looking at the nightly. While the bottom 
drawing is a camera the is looking at the nightly rotation while in a orbit 
that also mimics the nightly rotation. The two drawings are not equivalent and 
only the bottom one is and would hide and make the annual and
 nightly indistinguishable from each other.

  I attach it here again for any late comers.......

  Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          Dear Allen,
  Just a point of clarification. In the 'non HC' drawing the camera is in one 
position whilst the earth rotates below it. Is this deliberate or should the 
camera positions be the same as the 'HC' drawing? This would mean that the ONLY 
difference between the two drawings is the angle of the ecliptic with respect 
to the stars.
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:44 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you

  One last thing, for the evening.....They say a picture speaks a thousand 
words......  Hopefully you will all be able to see this....brand new attached 
diagram. it illustrates the fundamental error in your argument...........


  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

  Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. 

Other related posts: