# [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 08:27:10 -0800 (PST)
```  I took a break this week end and this is the first time i got on since
friday. I have to say I?m suprised by this but I respect your decision Neville.
I will not concede however for two basic reasons.

1.Regner's/ these argumental proofs are made w.r.t. a camera sweeping out of
it place (Green arrow/line) when facing the ecliptic axis. My argument does not
have anything to do with the camera facing the ecliptic axis.  It is looking at
the celestial axis all year every day..it canont change its oreintaion nor can
it sweep anywhere!?  The cameras orientation can never changes  wrt any axis,(
it could not follow the green arrow, ever ) for it is always parallel to the
celestial axis. (all day all year) That would never change year around. at
midnight parallel to the celestial axis is by the defintion we all agreed to a
rotation. The point i argue on is that simply looking at the celestial axis
does not/ cannot make the rotation & parallax of the actual ecliptic axis or
its effects disappear. This is the point of the diagrams. It shows that and as
of yet no one as addressed any error with it? Not only does that diagram it
self make & prove the point. But Regner even agreed
to the fundamental meaning of that diagram. If simply looking at the celestial
axis does not make the rotational effect around the ecliptic disappear then
what is the argument?  If it does how dose it do that without violating the
previous axioms to which all agreed to !? The fact that the nightly would be
manifested in the annual was and is not in question. Nor does it automatically
follow that there is no other motion to be observed for the reasons i gave ( &

2. Secondly, Actual experiments not just a the lack of logic from its
distracters will show all of my arguments valid, including the basic
conclusion. A camera using the real Polaris and stars rotated and translated
the way we have been discussing will show the difference between the
motions??even in translation with the conditions we have all discussed and even
agreed to.

Untill some one acctualy address the arguments that I put forward i will not
conceed. If someone has then please outline it copy and past the parts of
Regners post that i missed for me cause i dont see it at all?

Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear All,

I respected Regner's request not to immediately respond to his last posting,
but instead have been giving this whole matter very careful consideration.

There is now no doubt in my mind that the 24-hour images about the ecliptic
polar axis are always going to be snapshots of the diurnal rotation in the
heliocentric model and I concede, therefore, that the celestial poles argument
does not disprove the heliocentric model.

Steven and my web site will be amended in the near future, God willing, to
reflect this retraction.

I would just like to thank you all for some excellent debating and for the many
illustrations that several of you have provided. I hope that none of you feel
that your efforts were either wasted or unappreciated.

This topic will not be closed yet, since Allen has not had a chance to fully
digest Regner's post. If he concedes, as I have, then we will close it off,
otherwise he will now have one more to convince!

I hope that our little forum family is strengthened by this discussion and that
each one of us has learnt something from it, I know that I have. If, however,
anyone feels disappointed, then I apologise to you for building your hopes up.

Best wishes,

Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
```