Translational motion is also referred to as "sliding" or "rolling" motion (to
change position without rotation). see attached diagram .....In HC the nightly
axis of rotation or the celestial pole the axis translates around the orbit of
the earth. This is to say that the axis always faces the same direction ..Iʼll
even use Paulʼs diagram to show it ( i expounded upon it) ( i will reinvent the
wheel latter) The celestial pole does not rotate around the ecliptic axis as
Regner showed in his diagram..!? Although I agree (as per HC/AC) the celestial
axis "translates"/ ("slides" to keep looking in the same direction of the sky)
around the ecliptic axis annually. ( if faces that same direction at the same
angle, it does not rotate as Regner showed it to, and if it did that would even
further frustrate any and all attempts to explain it) On 24 hour intervals the
camera is inline with the spokes on a bicycle running from the night side of
the earth to the
sun. On 24 hour intervals ( midnight) over the course of a year the camera is
in itʼs radial position, not its "translated position".( Every 23 h 56 min the
camera would be in its translated position.) A radial position over the course
of the period of any orbit cause a net effect of a rotation of the film and
camera around the ecliptic axis in the same way that the camera would nightly.
See Paulʼs diagram attached....... Notice, that on 24 hour intervals regaudell
of the translated conditon of the celestial axis the observer is in a radial
position with the spokes extending out from the sun to the observer, over the
cours of a year the fixed camera will have rotated around the ecliptic axis.
The rotational condition cannot be avoided and thus cannot be negated
observably.
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:42:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
Regner, Paul and all,
You cannot have "translational motion" (or any motion for that matter) where
every 24 hours lined up as a spoke on a wheel (midnight) at the same point on
earth while in a orbit around the sun and not have a rotational condition for
the fixed observer/photo plate.....That is "TECHNICALLY" called a "physical
absurdity".!?. Nor can It even be modeled in reality period!......Even if his
diagram was true, which it was not even close...
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regner T
From Regner Trampedach Tue Nov 13 14:47:09 2007
Thank you for your illustration EarthOrbit2.gif (9KB). It awaits Allen's
confirmation of course, but assuming this is forthcoming, it explains what he
was saying -- which was beyond my ability to comprehend. Well done!
Oops! While writing this, another saga arrived -- it appears Allen is
withholding his confirmation! I got the impression he didn't read all the stuff
in capitals but I may be wrong.
You state (in capitals on a line by itself) THERE IS NO ROTATION AROUND THE
ECLIPTIC AXIS. I take it this is a technically correct statement which does not
rule out translational motion about this axis? And of course revolution about
this axis would also be incorrect -- that motion is about the Sun.
Comments/corrections?
Paul D
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.Attachment:
1.PNG
Description: PNG image
