[geocentrism] Re: an axis or not?
- From: <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentric" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:12:36 -0500
Philip, the red line in your first example tricks the forum by making believe
the daily travel path is going north and south of the equator; while second
example (diagram) doesn't show the slight angle in the daily motions of the
Sun; the daily angle between the ecliptic's poles and the celestial poles is
very, very small. The red line in the first diagram is only bringing
confusion. While your second example doesn't represent anything real but it is
almost accurate; again because the daily angle is so small.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
Sent: 12 janvier 2008 03:15
To: geocentrism list
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: an axis or not?
Marc, perhaps I was not clear with the text. But I wanted all to expect that
the axis would rotate around the sky every 24 hours in a full year, not
specific to the equinoxes, which just do not show up in the 12 hours of a full
day which the two positions of the sun shown above of any animated video I
might have produced. The red lines of the diagram above represent the annual
solar orbit, which in one way could be likened to a disc which wobbles. But its
only a graphic not a disc. The sun would move down the red line slightly every
24 hours. The N and S equinoxes would be the ends of the red line
the points made from my text. :
Please note that I will assume and presume a geocentric solar system.
Heliocentrists may just accept it as an exercise in geometry.
:
In the first diagram I show a stationary earth with an axis through the N-S
poles, still called the celestial axis. I also show the suns 24 hour orbit
around the earth by two positions 12 hours apart, and the annual orbit which
has an axis enclined to the celestial axis some 23 degrees.
and :
Notice that in this motion of the suns 24 hour orbit around the world during
which it travels a short part of its 365 day orbit , that the axis of the orbit
has a 24 hour precessional motion like a top spinning off balance. So (but)
this axis is merely a geometrical expression varying in time.
Is that where you had difficulty, or was it with the helical spring
representation.
both are correct in relation to the geocentric motions involved, as far as I
can see, but the helical spring is closer to the reality, in a geocentric
model. Of course I could also add that the inclination of the 24 hour increment
of the full annual inclination is not even near 23 degrees.
What is invalid in this conclusion I made?
"Let me show you the equivalent motions in another geometrical form which is
far closer to the reality. Here we have the solar motion as it really is, a
helix (spring)
Where in the sun travels north and south to complete its annual orbit. This is
identical mathmatically and physically as the last drawing except, where is
the axis of a spring? Here we have the solar orbit axis in line with the
celestial axis, as I have always maintained it should be.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Geocentric
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 2:12 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: an axis or not?
Philip,
First I must apologize for not being able to follow the forum ; I wish I had
more time. On your email below (I couldn't send back with your drawings), you
tricked the forum by not showing in both examples the same data. In your
first example (2 drawings), the ecliptic line is shown as going through the
center of the earth, while in your second example, the line of the ecliptic is
only going through the center of the Earth on the equinoxes.
So your conclusion (or assumption) is not valid.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
Sent: 2 janvier 2008 00:05
To: geocentrism list
Subject: [geocentrism] an axis or not?
I must say that the recent discussions on the solar orbit debate with its
complex diagrams did cause me some amazement. It was as if some people saw the
graphic geometrical representations as a reality, something that I just could
not appreciate. So I decided to put up an example of equivalent geometry, with
the accent on axes. You know, the celestial versus ecliptic type. My
diagramatic graphics will not approach the complexity of others but it should
suffice.
Please note that I will assume and presume a geocentric solar system.
Heliocentrists may just accept it as an exercise in geometry.
In the first diagram I show a stationary earth with an axis through the N-S
poles, still called the celestial axis. I also show the suns 24 hour orbit
around the earth by two positions 12 hours apart, and the annual orbit which
has an axis enclined to the celestial axis some 23 degrees.
Notice that in this motion of the suns 24 hour orbit around the world during
which it travels a short part of its 365 day orbit , that the axis of the orbit
has a 24 hour precessional motion like a top spinning off balance. So this axis
is merely a geometrical expression varying in time.
Let me show you the equivalent motions in another geometrical form which is far
closer to the reality. Here we have the solar motion as it really is, a helix
(spring)
Where in the sun travels north and south to complete its annual orbit. This is
identical mathmatically and physically as the last drawing except, where is
the axis of a spring? Here we have the solar orbit axis in line with the
celestial axis, as I have always maintained it should be.
Philip.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.1/1220 - Release Date: 11/01/2008
6:09 PM
Other related posts:
