[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles ..part 2
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:38:26 -0800 (PST)
Part 2 is larger text and labeled.... in blue..
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Blue...
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen Daves,
Your post a far too long - I would much appreciate if you could tighten
up your writing a bit.
My replies interspersed below.
------------------------------------------------------
Quoting Allen Daves :
> Most of the diagrams here have been updated with one completly new one
>
Thanks - doesn't change anything, though - which I guess is also your point.
> Regner & All,
>
> You state: "I don't get your arguments - there are too many pieces
> missing." this is in essense the cental and key issue i am pointing out to
> you in all my comments about your argument(s).
>
I believe I have included all pieces of information necessary for under-
standing my posts and my figures.
> We agree that looking in a different direction does not make a rotation
> disappear.
>
Good.
> I?m waiting for you to address the diagrams I gave you that
> clearly show the rotation ( by a definition that we agreed to)#1 & 11 not
> only around the celestial axis ( that was never in dispute) but also around
> the ecliptic axis.
>
I have told you before, that they don't. I then stated that if the observer
is in a radial orientation to the common point then you agreed, you said "its a
rotation it is that simple"..Your gross error in your overall explanation here
with the earth attempts to do the same thing that you did there with diagram
#11. You ignore the fact that the sphere the observer is on is spinning. You
opted for a bead on a wire, which cannot spin in relation to the common point
in question. This is the selective view you attempt ot argue from. You ignore,
that in the case of the earth, however, the bead is spinning and that affects
the oreintaion and relationship of the observer in relation to both axis or
common points. The observer located on the sphere (earth) can and will achieve
a radial orientation to both common points, ( ecliptic axis & celestial ) both
axis simultaneously because the path used to get there is irrelevant. The
diagrams and any complete model you put forward have
clearly shown/proven this to be the case.
This was your first mistake..
What are those numbers referring to?the name of the relevant attached Diagrams
> Simply having one does not prevent the other.
>
As a matter of fact - if you want both axes to keep their orientation in space
- the celestial axis always pointing to (approximately) the North Star, and
the ecliptic axis always being perpendicular to the ecliptic They do by
defintion - particulaly since the earth translates then the orentaion of the
two axis can nver change wrt each other. I have already proven this fact ans
howin it in diagrams. your diagrams dont prove anything except they are
incomplete and are looking at the problem from the wrong perspective...yes
there is more then one, and you are looking at all the wrong things. then you
simply
CANNOT have ROTATION around BOTH axes. In the corrected Fig.3: I did that shows
the celestial axis in a progressive radial oreintaion to the ecliptic......new
...figure 15-4
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/gif2i1Q7CRrw2.gif
I have shown you exactly what it would look like with
ROTATION around both axes.
This is where you are getting confused with your own explanations!....There
is a fundamental difference between rotation of the axis around each other and
an observer in rotation around both axis. You do not have to have both axis in
progressive radial orientation to each other in order for an observer to be in
a progressive radial ordination to both. The reason this is true is becuse of
the other motion you ignore and dont address. That was the point of my diagram
#11 the path of travel is irrelevant to a rotational effect only progressive
radial orientations to some common point regardless of the path. The key to
understanding this is the fact that the earth spins not just translates. in
fact it translates to the ecliptic plane as well. That is the fundamental flaw
in your explanations and diagrams. you are in effect arguing that rotation of
the axis around each other is one and the same thing as an observer in
progressive radial orientation around both axis
simultaneously.
1.Yes a observer can be in progressive radial oreintaion to both just as in
the case of a orbital sander ecah particle is in rotation around both axis. The
radial condtion would be isolated for both if each partical on the orbital
sander was also spinning . Together, the combinations of the two rotational
motions casue a distict motion. ( a circular motion with a orbitla motion
supperimopsoded on it. You keep saying it is not posible. You are wrong and it
is demonstratable. Your arguments are confusing the significance and relevance
of the motion of the axis themsevles with the motions of an observer to thoes
axis. Those two things are not one and the same. You not mee keep addresing the
motions of the axis..!? The axis don't move except for the celestial translates
the ecliptic. The ecliptic axis does not move, however the observers wrt to
both of thoes axis do move wrt both!
2. This is not so much for you as it is for some of the others
here.....There are two translational motions,not one. (one to ceestial axis the
other to the ecliptic plane) the oreintation of those two do not change,
however an observer on a spining earth dose depening where & how on the shere
(earth) is located. This is conveniently missed or the significance of it is
not understand. see diagram #15-4 attached
That was your second mistake...
PLEASE take a look at that figure again. You keep
telling me that it doesn't show your view of the HC model - but it does.
You cannot have the rotation around the ecliptic without screwing up the
rotation around the celestial axis.
I have already shown you the reason you are wrong on that issue namely
1.Your diagram does not take into a count the spin of the earth. You cannot
have a purely transactional motion on a spinning body... The earth also
translates to the ecliptic plane. There is a big and key difference between a
angular view of the celestial axis and a angular displaced view of the
ecliptic. The two are not equivalent but only the latter will mimic and make
both motions indistinguishable. I show how that is done you only make
assertions that have no bases in observation or experimentation.
2.Your diagram does not dipict a fixed camera looking at the celestial pole.
YOur diagrams dipicts in effect a camera looking at the ecliptic pole. a camera
looking at the celestial pole can never change angle wrt the ecliptic. It
however does not have to look directly at the ecliptic pole inorder to see any
rotation if it existed. In your diagram the change is a result of the camera
looking at the ecliptic. Yes that will change if that is the initail direction
of the camera. It can however and does rotate around a real axis the eclectic
if the ecliptic axis really exist.
3. Any Changes of a camera looking at other spots on the celestial latitudes
does not effect what we could, would and must observe if the motions as per HC
( not your selective HC motions existed.) a orbital motion due to the rotation
that in fact exist around the ecliptic would superimpose a orbit on that
celestial motion such that it would cause the latitudes to move in circles not
just the cameras path around those circles. Secondly it would be the most
dominate motion not a subordinate motion. You would still have the circular
motion you describe but with the orbital motion causing the latitudes
themselves to "wobble"
> And if it
> does then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how. I have already
> show how and you even agreed.
>
You have stated some self-contradictory things in the past .
Please be specific if it relates to the arguments for this discussion i
will address them, particularly if they affect the validity of my argument
and I have pointed
out which parts I agree with - you have actually never commented on any of
that, but just latch on to the part I agree on.
> Your animations show effects that are either irrelevant to my argument...
>
Well, I'm afraid I just showed you the HC view - if that is irrelevant to
you, then I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused you.
Regner, Your diagram is
1. Incomplete, It is not HC it is only a selcetive view of HC ..There is a
difference!..mine is complet as of yet you have not bothered to address them
excpet to say your are right and mine are not showing what yours are..!?
2. Your diagrams do not show what we would/should be looking at. the
argument. That is why it is irrelevant. Your diagrams do not show the
orientation of a fixed camera looking at the celestial axis over the course of
a year. As a result they are not even capable of showing or refuting the radial
orientation to the ecliptic axis!? Your explanations and diagrams are focused
on the green line and its observablitily of the sun????? That is why it is
irrelevant to my argument! Your diagrams don?t take into consideration all of
the motion ascribed to the earth, so for you to claim that it shows HC is
selective at best. It, I have no doubt, is how HC explains all this, but that
is the point. The explanation is incomplet, erroneous and inconsistent with
itself. Your explanations are erronious for all these reasons, i have shown you
that. For one your application of the term rotation is not consistent. Your
explintions in effect pick and chooses which motions it wants to look
while as you do ignore the ones you don?t. You claim changes in the camera
that don?t exist, that clealy do exist and you iggnore teh effects of certain
motions would have on all this. In my arguments/ diagrams and i prove they do
and have the effects just as described. It is your explanation that is a
piecemeal of HC not mine.
> or ignores the altogether a path that produces a
> radial orientation of the fixed camera over the course of a year to the
> ecliptic.
>
Yes - because there isn't such a thing! It is neither a part of the
HC model or part of reality.
What!? It most certainly is! YOu dont see the difference between HC and your
HC explinations. You keep making that assertion, there most certainly is and I
have shown that there is. I shown you in diagrams, you have yet to address
except to say it does not exist!?...That is an assertion not a explanation! I
have shown and addressed the deficiencies of your diagrams that prevent those
diagrams from 1. Being completely accurate 2. Not capable of seeing what i am
showing.
Besides - you didn't recognize it when I showed it to you in the
corrected Fig.3:
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/11-2007/gif2i1Q7CRrw2.gif
That was your third mistake...
Regner if you had bothered and attempted even a little complete modeling and
experimentation you would see that your whole explanation here particularly
your application of the term rotation is entirely untenable......YOu seem to
confues your edplintions with HC constructs and the two are not one and the
same...One is dogma ........ the other is mechanical facts.....you have thoes
two things confussed
PART 2.........
> 1.. I stated that in making your arguments you are not applying the
> definition of rotation consistently.
>
Yes I do.
> We agreed that regardless of the path a
> body takes, a progressive radial orientation to a common point, is/ will
> constituent a rotation...
>
Yes - I agree.
> or rotational effect. (See attached diagram)#13-2;
>
This "rotational effect" thing you have invented doesn't clarify things if
you don't define it. Please, can you just stick to rotation - or at least
use language that is commonly agreed upon - there is plenty to choose from.
> 15-3& 15-2 Although you keep asserting that there is no rotation around the
> ecliptic,
>
I do.
What are those numbers referring to? The numbered diagrams i attached are
you...???
> I show you that there clearly is at 24 hour intervals a radial
> orientation to the ecliptic axis regaurdless of the time it takes the earth
> to spin on its axis.
>
No - you have shown that the projection onto the ecliptic plane looks like
that.
If you would please take Ani.2 seriously and realize that it exactly
addresses your question - and please don't dismiss me quite yet.
I put the green line out along the equatorial plane, because you were
looking for a "radial condition". You still haven't defined what this
"radial condition" is, but my best shot, is that it means that:
"you can form a straight line that goes between the centre of the
Earth, the Sun, and a a fixed point (latitude and longitude) on Earth."
* Your assertion is that such a line can be formed every 24 hours.
* I am showing you that you can't - it will only work twice a year at the
equinoxes.
* The pink line between the centres of the Earth and the Sun, obviously
changes latitude (where it enters Earth) during the year. Exactly as I
stated in my post.
* If you were to be correct, then the pink line should enter the Earth at
the exact same latitude and longitude every 24 hours. It doesn't.
> The camera translates only on one of its axis, & one of
> its axis only, towards the celestial axis.
>
Eh, a translation does not involve an axis... it can refer to the motion in a
plane. if a body stays in a plane then the same concept applies....
Something being moved in a circle around an axis, does not move
towards or away from that axis. That's the definition of a circle...
> The camera still rotates on the
> ecliptic plane itself.
>
In which case it can't be fixed to the Earth.
> ( crosswise, sideways, crosswise. on the ecliptic plane around the
> ecliptic axis).
>
I have no idea what that means..?..Your not looking at the diagrams..the define
all of this for you....?
> The rotation is not limited to the celestial
> axis it also just as in the case of a orbital sander v a circular sander it
> also rotates around the ecliptic axis, period.
>
Because of English being my second language, I'm not sure what an orbital
sander is - if it is what I think it is, then it would only support my
argument.
> I show it in a diagram and it is a accurate depiction of what takes place.
>
If only you could tell me which diagram you refer to...
> If looking in another direction does not make
> a rotation or rotational effect disappear then the only argument as of yet
> you have attempted to make is in fact not a argument or demonstration at all,
> but merely an assertion that there is no rotation around the ecliptic!?
>
Nope. I have done my best to tell you why.
> A. Now first of all you have not disagreed with the depictions of the
> diagrams I gave you.
>
I have told you that your first figure of this post (two plots) are
projections on a plane - the ecliptic, which means that you miss the point
that a line (camera, umbrella, alligator I don't care what) sticking out
from a fixed pointed on Earth, will NOT stay in the ecliptic plane - rather
it will stay in the equatorial plane.
wrong! The vertical distance of travel that the camera moves (Up & down) over
the course of a year does not constitute the annual orbital motion remaining in
the celestial plane! ( diagram 15-5) it only demonstrates a angled view of the
motion that exist in the ecliptic plane. ( a simple experiment with a camera
will prove this for you) It only moves and stays in the ecliptic plane all year
long. that is the whole point and difference between angular view and a angular
displacement. If the camera was not in real rotation around the ecliptic then
yes there would only be the motions in the celestial plane. That is the
difference between real and imaginary axis & motion.
Your projections onto the ecliptic means that your top two plots of
this post, correspond to a top-view of your very bottom figure of this post.
The one with the title "This is NOT HC & THE TWO ARE NOT EQUIVALENT!"
- the title, of course, we agree on.
Despite the title, this is what you show in your very first two figures
of this post.
> ( For good reason..you cannot demonstrate that the
> conditions i show don?t exist just as shown, rather you attempt opt argue
> their meaning. It is in that endeavor I demonstrate your inconsistency and
> contradiction of terms)
>
I'll quietly ignore those assumptions and insinuations about me.
> B. You attempt to use some standard of "rotation" that is either entirely
> inconsistent with what was already agreed to.
>
No.
> Now the diagrams are pretty
> self explanatory. I show a fixed camera on the equator looking at the
> celestial axis.
> Since the earth spins around that celestial axis at the
> equator, the camera will always point to the celestial axis.
>
Absolutely correct (well, a celestial pole, obviously - not the axis).
> Thus the cameras
> orientation to the night sky is know throughout the whole experiment. The
> camera cannot and will not rotate out of that position ever.
>
Absolutely correct.
But then we agree, and there is only one axis of rotation!
- the celestial axis.
> The transnational motion of the camera
>
Hmmm, I guess that precludes a camera that is fixed on Earth... the earth
translates to the ecliptic plane not the celestial.... that is why there is
rotaion on the ecliptic axis and not just the celestial axis....
> to the celestial axis only applies to the
> cameras "x" axis.
>
That doesn't make sense. it is obvious you are not lookong at the diagrams they
define this for you.....#15-3
It is the whole Earth, including camera, that is performing a continuous
translational motion.
That motion is in the ecliptic plane. You have one
axis, the Y-axis, in the ecliptic plane. It takes two axes to define (span)
a plane if the axis are in that plane.
> It?s x axis to the celestial axis (see attached diagram.)
>
It only takes one axis to define a plane perendicular to that axis.
Your X-axis (the celestial axis) defines the equatorial plane and
your Z-axes lies in that plane.
> #15-3 The camera unequivocally rotates as a function of y & z vectors
>
Your statement doesn't make sense, and is therefore not unequivocal.
The rotation is around your X-axis (= the celestial axis). Your Z-axis
is in the equatorial plane, as defined by your X-axis. NO! The whole earth
and every point on earth moves in the ecliptic plane. The vertical distance
that the z y axis traverse (up & down) over the course of a year does not
constitute remaining in the equatorial/ celestial plane while in orbit! It does
effectively constitute remaining in the ecliptic plane. The condition of a
camera on the equatorial plane is only a angled view point of the rotation
around the ecliptic axis. Merely looking at a rotation from a different view
does not make it go away!? All you are doing is describing a angled view and
attempting to argue that it is the same thing as rotational motion on the
equatorial plane. They are not the same and that is a grossly erroneous
argument. Again the differences in the concepts and how you know one from the
other is the point of diagrams # 15-2; 15-3, 15-4 and now once more in 15-5
This is your fourth & by far your most subtle mistake.......
I will try to consolidate the issues of confusion I will try to consolidate
these over the next several days.........I think I understand exactly what &
why there is so much confusion with you and the others now.....
> which lie on the ecliptic plane.
>
Only the Y-axis is in the ecliptic plane.
>
> 2. You claim:........."Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day
> (24h00m), just means you are taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the
> daily rotation whose real period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For
> Each day, you let the Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a
> picture. A year of that will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial
> axis"
> A. This issue was never in question, nor is it even relevant.
>
This is were I get thoroughly lost.
You are concerned about what happens to a camera, fixed on Earth, pointing
in a fixed direction with respect to Earth, and when I tell you what happens
to that camera I am dismissed as being irrelevant!
I think it's time for me to get back to work.
Allen, please read my replies and try to understand. We have hashed through
this same stuff so many times now.
Regner
> We are not
> looking for any motion of the stars around their various latitudes on the
> celestial sphere/circles. We are only looking for a change in the latitude
> itself wrt the cameras fixed position due to rotation around the ecliptic
> axis.
> B. Since we know which stars are on which latitude, the stars can be in
> constant motion around their given latitudes but, if there is a change in the
> latitude ( wrt camera) that change will be apparent without looking/ focusing
> on any given or specific star.
> Then you err with this conclusion which as of yet has not demonstrated a
> logical path to its arrival... it is not a path it is merely reasserts your
> position.
> "Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly
> motion, just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation.".
> The motion of the stars in progressive circles around their specified
> latitude is and has been completely irrelevant from the very beginning. Of
> course the stars are going to move on the nightly circles of their given
> latitudes in the same way that any other compound motion will still must
> demonstrate any of the other motions used to create it? What does not
> logically & mechanically follow is that the presence or observation of one
> motion negates the observablity of the other. You conclusion is not logically
> supported any more then it would be logical to say that because we observe a
> circular motion in a orbital sander thus the all the motions are equivalent
> and we could not observe the orbital motion either..!? it would be one thing
> if you demonstrated that as I did in my diagram which showed how to make the
> two motions indistinguishable. You on the other hand don?t demonstrate or
> explain anything, you merely assert that you could not because there is no
> rotational
> motion. However you can?t explain how or why there is no rotational motion
> without contradicting the previously agreed to items or arguing in
> circles..!? The only reasons thus far given by anyone to explain how or why
> there is no rotation around the ecliptic axis contradict what was already
> agreed upon.
> I show how you can mimic the nightly motion as a annual orbit such that the
> two would be indistinguishable. There was agreement that it would. However we
> also agreed it was not equivalent to HC. (See attached # 15-2) merely looking
> a different direction ( at the ecliptic axis) does not make a rotation or a
> rotational effect disappear. That was agreed upon. Merely asserting that
> there is no rotation demonstrates nothing. Telling us that the annual motion
> produces a snapshot of the nightly motions says absolutely nothing.
>
> Conclusion:
> I have demonstrated what constitutes a rotation and what would produce a
> rotational effect.
> I have demonstrated how a fixed camera to the earth meets those conditions
> precisely over the course of a annual orbit.
> Your only objections have been either an assertion that it does not exist
> or some vauge implied reference that since the camera is facing the celestial
> axis it only rotates around the celestial axis. It is that point of
> contradiction that seems to be missed. We already agreed to the fact that
> there is no difference between rotation and merely looking in another
> direction while in rotation. The same effects would be observable if a
> rotation exist. Then you attempt to argue in circles by claiming there is no
> rotation. The arguments you have put forward only assert that conclusion as
> the premise on which the argument (that supposedly proves/ demonstrates it)
> is built upon.
> If looking in a different direction does not make it disappear then as of
> yet there has been no argument that demonstrates (not merely asserts) that
> there is no rotation around the ecliptic. Your arguments not mine are missing
> too too many peices with absolutly no logical path demonstrated for the
> conclusitons arival.
>
>
>
>
> Regner Trampedach wrote:
> Allen - I don't get your arguments - there are too many pieces missing.
> Could you please, step-for-step, tell us how my statements (from the caption
> of Ani.2):
> "Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day (24h00m), just means you are
> taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the daily rotation whose real
> period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For Each day, you let the
> Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a picture. A year of that
> will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial axis. During the
> same time you have completed a full TRANSLATION around the Sun.
> Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly motion,
> just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation."
> violates your
> "three [sic]preiviously agreed [sic]apon facts
> 1. the two are not equal.....only the [sic]botom one would mimic the nightly
> action
> 2. a rotation still exist (and it is around the ecliptic)
> 3. looking in another direction does not make a rotational effect disappear"
> Well - it does, of course, violate the parenthesis in 2.
>
> Ad 1. That's why I stated that in the captions - and why would I waste time
> and bandwidth making two identical animations?!?!?
> Ad 2. I do not, and have never, agreed to there being a ROTATION around the
> ecliptic axis - If you meant to say that I have agreed to that, then
> you are severely twisting my words.
> Ad 3. Yes, I have pointed out that any rotation will be visible/recognizable
> which-ever direction you look at. Even in that post
>
> - Regner
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> -
>
>
> Quoting Allen Daves :
>
> > We have already discused this Philip and even Regner Agreed to the
> > fundimentals..look at the diagram....
> >
> > That argument violates three preiviously agreed apon facts
> > 1. the two are not equal.....only the botom one would mimic the nightly
> > action
> > 2. a rotation still exist (and it is around the ecliptic)
> > 3. looking in another direction does not make a rotational effect
> > disappear
> >
> > I will add also that the argument violates any and all
> > experimentation....!?
> >
> > philip madsen
> wrote:
> > Allen, you need to read this especially what I underlined, and be
> > sure you understand what is being said.. Philip.
> >
> > Animation #2 - daily (Solar) snapshots
> > ---------------------------------------
> > EarthOrb3_10_trop.gif, please refer to this as Ani.2.
> > We now add the daily rotation/spin of the Earth around the celestial axis,
> > and we take a snapshot every tropical (Solar) day.
> >
> > Notice how the line to the Sun (pink) stays at the same longitude - that
> > is the definition of tropical (Solar) day. The latitude of that line,
> > however, changes during the year - going from +23.5° in the Northern
> > summer (right) to -23.5° in the Northern winter (left) - that's why we
> > have seasons.
> >
> > Allen, Neville and others, have suggested that cameras mounted (fixed) on
> > Earth, would see a rotation around the ecliptic axis (dotted line) during
> > a year. I have therefore mounted a camera on the equator to look straight
> > up at zenith (radially out from the Earth). I have mounted my camera to
> > look towards the Sun at noon, instead of out at midnight, but I hope you
> > realize that this has no consequence for this discussion.
> > The green line shows the direction of view of that camera.
> > During the year it sweeps out the equatorial plane of Earth.
> > It rotates around the Earth's axis of daily rotation = celestial axis.
> > If you look at it from above, the projection will make it look like the
> > camera looks straight towards the Sun - This is what Allen's and Neville's
> > figures depicts (except they have their cameras face the opposite
> direction
> > towards the local meridian at midnight). It is however, a projection
> effect
> > - in three dimensions you realize that the camera (green line) only points
> > to the Sun twice a year - at the solstices.
> > It should also be clear that you can move the camera to any spot on Earth
> > and have it look in any direction - if it is kept fixed, it will only
> > see the daily rotation around the celestial axis (dashed line).
> > Taking snapshots every tropical (solar) day (24h00m), just means you are
> > taking pictures at an incrementing phase of the daily rotation whose real
> > period is 23h56m - the sidereal (stellar) day. For Each day, you let the
> > Earth rotate for 4 more minutes before taking a picture. A year of that
> > will complete a full ROTATION around the celestial axis. During the
> > same time you have completed a full TRANSLATION around the Sun.
> > Taking pictures every tropical (Solar) day does not depict a yearly
> motion,
> > just snapshots in different phases of the daily rotation.
> >
> > Looking carefully at high-quality images taken every sidereal (stellar)
> > day (see Ani.1) you will see parallaxes for some of the closer stars
> > - this is the manifestation of the annual (translational) motion around
> > the Sun.
> >
> > James, your drawing is beautiful and shows the same thing, as I show.
> > The only slightly misleading thing, is that you have drawn grid-lines on
> > Earth that are w.r.t. the ecliptic axis (green) - the grid should be
> tilted
> > to be aligned with the celestial (red) axis. I also agree with Neville and
> > Allen (I believe) that one of the blue "cameras" should be marked with a
> > different colour, to be able to follow the rotation.
> >
> > Sorry for this post being so long, but there were many points to address.
> > I also try to keep misunderstandings to a minimum by rephrasing things.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Regner
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Allen Daves
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:27 AM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
> >
> >
> > 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
=== message truncated ===
Other related posts:
