[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth? supplemental
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:19:11 -0800 (PST)
Jack,
One other thing. Your diagram does not reflect the perspective of a observer
on earth in reality...The diagram i just gave you reflects the perspective of a
observer. The key point is the observer views the NEP from his location not the
sun's location. However, due to the distances it makes no observable
difference. that is what the diagram i sent you shows...
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jack,
I attached a all new diagram here....After you see this diagram, take a look
and let me know if you understand my answer now......I did answer you question
..NO then i expalined why but I don?t think the answer was understood
......This diagram should make it clear as mud...? :-)...especially if you
reread the first part of what I wrote, i have included it here in this post.....
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Allen,
I'm not sure if you know what I was referring to so I have attached a simple
drawing.
Jack
Jack,
you asked: "This is just a side question. Is there any significance in
where the NCP and the NEP meet or intersect?"
No. that is what "12 inverse" is showing, for the same reason that it makes
no difference where we draw the NEP on the earth's supposed orbit of the sun
the distance is to small to have any significant effect. The same holds true
for the NCP it sits 23 degrees offset from the NEP and anywhere you draw it on
earth's supposed orbit of the sun will not have any affect on what you should
see..due to the vase divergences. Thus you can draw those two intersecting at
any point anywhere through the earth, along the earth's supposed orbit of the
sun and it will not have any affect on what you should see. Again the important
and central issue is the radial condition of the camera every 24 hours in both
the supplemental diagrams as well as the earth. As long as the camera keeps a
radial orientation to the axis of "orbit" the net effect is a rotational
motion. On the earth we know exactly when an observer on the earth would be in
a radial orientation to the axis in question.
Therefore even if you would not define the earth's orbit or the one shown in
the supplemental diagrams as a "rotation". The net effect of the photo record
will show a rotation about the axis in question if that orbit truly exist......
For some reason Regner cannot seem to make the connection of a radial
orientation around a orbit ( translational or not) with a rotational
condition.......oh well.. no matter how he wants to define "rotation" ( at this
point i don't know how he defines that term) or the earth's orbit as a
translation rather then a "rotation" the net rotational condition still exist
every 24 hours (by definition to the axis in question [sun]) because the
observer is oriented radially to the axis we are looking for and thus would
have to manifest itself that way if it existed at all.......PERIOD!
Other related posts:
