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

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:10:16 -0000

Dear Allen,
Yes I can see what you are saying. The fact that I mentioned the different 
position of the camera on the two original drawings was to check and see if it 
mattered. I think it is very important for drawings to be as accurate as 
possible otherwise people may see something that is not meant to be. 

A question for Regner and Paul. Can you use Allen's or Neville's or my drawings 
to show why they are wrong. Providing a completely different looking drawing, 
which can be overdone graphically, just confuses me. It must be possible to 
show where a drawing is wrong even if it is not possible, for lack of graphic 
software, to actually change someone's drawing.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 5:20 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing brand new for you


  See this  change of asthetics..It does not change the drawing or dynamics 
itself  but is more cosistent with itself. I thought this is how the first one 
looked........but i did not see it till  much latter..in any case it does not 
change anything except the asthetics.... the top one is real rotaion on one 
axis while looking in another direction.................. and the bottom one is 
looking at the same axis as the real rotation.. that conditon is not the same 
line and as Renger pointed out 

  "...the two axes are coincident, in the top figure they are not. You can't 
change that by any tilting of the figures."........

  The significance is the fact that only the bottom one will cause the nightly 
rotation and the annual orbit/rotation to coincide so as not to be able to 
distinguish the two. We only observe nightly star trails it does not matter if 
we take them in one night or over the course of a year the same star trails are 
the only thing visible. Therefore for HC to be tenable it must explain how 
there are two rotations on two different axis and yet only see the same thing. 
My point with the diagram is that the bottom one is the only way to do 
that...The problem is that the bottom one is not HC and the top one cannot do 
what the bottom one does.

Other related posts: