# [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof

• From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:23:15 -0800 (PST)
```Allen

Me in red

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
1. Facing the same direction year around?.......Not rotating.! ?..what in
the world are you talking about? ..only the earth is tilted in the same
direction not the observer, certainly is not forced so as to be prevented from
seeing the other directions ..Hey wake up, its a sphere !? Consider the
observer to be a camera mounted on a tri-pod.How is the observer force to only
see one direction on a sphere !? Anyplace I set up my "observer" (under the
condition of the earth not allowed it's daily rotaton) , it will be looking at
a certain spot in the heavens that will not change. If I allow my camera to
turn anywhich way, I could produce any star trail I like. The observer can
position himself any where on the sphere he likes. He can also orientate
himself parallel to any axis !!!???? ....That is a ridiculous argument...Give
it a chance before you toss it aside. Thar's what I'm trying to do. Looking for
any problems in our own proof sould be a sign of integrity and honesty.
look at the diagrams i gave you again.....If the base line is irrelevant then
parallel view are equivalent! Are you so sure that the angle that the
"observer" is at does not influence whether the annual star trail can be viewed
if it existed?

2. Moving around the sun is rotation at 24 hour intervals as long as the
observer is orientated is parallels the axis of ROTATION ( by definition) there
is no logical or mechanical reason the observer cannot or will not see the
rotation on that axis if it exist.....Are you sure you are parrallel, with each
photo and not moving off by some degree each night? For crying out loud people
only the direction of the rotation is in question not the fact that the
rotation exist!.....The only difference between the annual and nightly is the
size of the circumference and the direction of the axis......No there are
differences.... The "observer" is travelling a path that is daily not parrallel
to the annual axis, therfore you would need to adjust the angle of the camera
by some amount depending on when you took the picture.... and that might create
the annual circle that we don't see. look at the diagram that is the postion a
observe is in at 24 hour intervals and as long as the
expsoures are taken over a long enough period (160-365days or so) the observer
is in a real rotation about a real axis that he can and is oreinted to...So now
we take the picture at the perfect moment each night, but the "observer" is not
rotating, he is facing the same spot of sky everynight at that moment. In
effect he is turning away from the annual rotation and he is doing so not
parrallel to the axis of rotation. If the "observer" were rotated with the
Annual axis, what angle would you rotate on and how would it affect the
position of any particular star in the picture?

3. Forget this nonsens about stoping the nightly spin........it is
irrelevant!  No one is questioning that nightly star trails will be visible if
the exposures are taken year around there is no difference in taking a photo of
any rotational object such as a blade on a helicopter at 23 rpm or 24 RPM
whether or not you take photos of the rotation all within one rotation interval
or if you take the photos over a 365 intervals they will all still record the
exact same rotation Try the same experiment, with the camera placed on the edge
of one of the blades looking down towards the body of the helicopter, force the
camera to rotate (or not rotate) so that it always faces towards one direction,
now start the blade spinning. What does the cam record? you would see the body
of the helicoter moving around in a circle (for half the circle the body would
not be visible)(and the helicopter would always be facing the same way). Now
place an extension between the blade and the body
(change the downward angle of the cam so it points at the helicopter body at
the start point), what has changed about the recording... you can see more of
the circle because the circle is smaller.... Now keep increasing the length of
the extension and eventually the circle is too small to be seen. Now lets
repeat the experiment with a box placed on the ground near the helicoter
body.... It to will make a circle that disapears with distance... In the end,
from an incredible distance, you'll only see a dot beside another dot, all
because the cam is not rotating with the rotation of the blade.... just like
the "observer" on earth.....that is moot issue and would not afect our ability
to see the other rotaion if it existed.......That has nothing to do with the
issue! Taking exposes at 24h 56min or 24 hour intervals has nothing to do with
rotation on the annual axis??.we are discussing a deviation from that axis not
the fact that a observer will see the nightly rational axis
even if he takes photos at different hours of the night in 365 day intervals
????..SO WHAT !? of course you are going to see the same star trails you taking
a photograph of the very same thing?if you take a time lapse photography of a
spinning wheel that spins at 23.56 RPM at any interval other then 23.56rpm you
will see a rotation but only about that axis ..IT MAKES NO DIFFERNECE IF YOU
TAKE THEM ALL WIHTIN ONE REVOLUTION OR YOU TAKE THEM IN 365 ROTAIONAL INTERVALS
??.ITS JUST A PHOTO OF THE SAME EVENT OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME..SO
WHAT!?.we are discussing a different event a different axis altogether the fact
there is nightly star trails in photos taken with exposures all year long is
irrelevant! We are looking for the rotation around the solar axis ?not the
rotation around the blank spot just to the side of Polaris..!!!!!!!!!!!

The last photos i sent were only to demonstrate the axist and the path of
deviation if it existed the photogrpah would in fact just all be a blurr...the
problem is we have time lapse photography over the course of 365 days taken at
24 hour (midnight) intervals it is not blurry it clearly shows the same nightly
rotation taken at differnt times of the year ...and so it should, becuse it is
a photo of the exact same thing the nightly path.....we are looking for and
must have a secondary path ....

There is no reason you can give for why we do not see the annual path that
does not apply to the nightly path nor is ther any reason you can give to
expalin why we do not see the annual path that would not negate the nightly
path..........There is obviously still alot of confussion on this...

j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Philip,

Me in Red

Well finally I can begin to feel sane, because Paul has fallen...I do not
mean he was on the pedestal, but he managed to keep confusing me.. But now he
confirms his fall with this to Ja  "I concur 100%"

Jar said,  "he is facing the same direction all year long. If the observer
does not rotate with the axis, how can he see a star trail?"  The observer
would not actually be rotating, Yes moving around the sun, but not rotating..

And this is very incomplete, and thus lacking in accuracy, and is a
statement with the removal or stopping of the earths daily rotation. Now since
the north pole always points at Polaris, then any other direction an observer
may face on any other place on the planet will not change over the course of a
year. Therefore there is no rotation of the observer with respect to the stars.
So there is no contradiction in my statement. I am simply trying to separate
the real motions (in HC) so that the results of each motion can be determined,
only then can we determine if we fail to see them.

DIV {   MARGIN: 0px  }        And If you meant this Paul, shame again,
though you had it in quotes....
In my imagination, I thought of the Earth's relationship to the Sun in the
the same way we tend to think of the Moon's relationship to the Earth -- "If we
always see the same face, it can't be spinning!"

As you know the moon makes one complete rotation for every orbit of the
earth.

Philip.
----- Original Message -----
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof

Well finally I can begin to feel sane, because Paul has fallen...I do not
mean he was on the pedestal, but he managed to keep confusing me.. But now he
confirms his fall with this to Ja  "I concur 100%"

Jar said,  "he is facing the same direction all year long. If the observer
does not rotate with the axis, how can he see a star trail?"  The observer
would not actually be rotating, Yes moving around the sun, but not rotating..

And this is very incomplete, and thus lacking in accuracy, and is a

How can any observer maintain a fixed orientation and face the exact same
direction in space all year long? The only co-ordinate he can chose is a star,
and it is this star's status, stationary or moving, that is under question.
???? The closest to this would be to face vertically N.. And because the earths
motion is under question even this is not actually determinate.

Only if the world were static, or the stars were static and unmoving could
this orientation be achieved, and it is this continuous and unending problem of
indeterminate relative motions that is being debated, so far without success.

None of us with all the uncountable drawings plans explanations has come even
close to an acceptable understanding or concensus. Everything we try is
thwarted because of the need to assume some basic premise which is contestable.

So far I see no sound proof offered to Regner.  Not 5, not 1. Excepting
perhaps the revolutionary hypothesis on the aether, not acceptable to MS or
Regner. My rational expectations is that GWW and Roberts input will be
dispensed with a very short and concise rebuttal as being inconclusive.

Philip.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 2:40 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof

J A
I concur 100%.
Now what would you see if you repeated the experiment but with the Earth's
axis magically made orthogonal to the plane of revolution -- the ecliptic
plane? (The axis is now pointing at the (north or south) ecliptic pole).
Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 3 November, 2007 4:32:16 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof

I want to take one more stab at our Proof. From the AC position, If we could
magically stop the planet in it's path around the sun but still rotating daily,
we could still observe the nightly star trails, because the observer is
rotating with the axis. If we could magically stop the daily rotation but not
the yearly, what would we see? The observer would not actually be rotating, Yes
moving around the sun, but not rotating. Now reduce the baseline to zero and
what is the observer doing? It's the same whether the baseline is zero or 1au,
he is facing the same direction all year long. If the observer does not rotate
with the axis, how can he see a star trail?

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     To prove it take a camera
and spin it at 23.44 degrees subtended to the perpendicular. now spin the
camera 365 times on the 23.44 degree axis for every one time that the whole
apparatus is rotated 360 degrees .........this will adequately demonstrate the
effect and since the observers scale (observers distance from axis of rotation)
makes no difference and we would be using actual stars at actual distances
there can be no protest of scale......

All is well in the house of the Geocentric
Universe.............ahhhhhhhhh......:)

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not to dispare..you see it does not matter ..why? ..because the nightly moves
through 360 degress 365 times for ever 1 anual rotation so the observer is at
some point all through out the 365 nights is going to be in rotaion about the
anual axis in all 360 degreess ......there will be a star trail but only on the
nightly axis everything as stated previously still applies.. and it would all
be a big blur.....but we already have that photo available to us.....it is not
blured at all by stars tracing out multiple paths simoltaniously...

j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:     Everybody,

I see a potential problem we need to consider in developing the dual axis
proof, which potentially could render it unusable. From an A-centric position,
basically it is this: On the nightly star trail the observer is moving along
the axis of rotation, therefore the view of the axis doesn't change. On the
annual star trail the observer is moving along a path that is 23.5 degrees off
of the axis of rotation. This means that the observers view of the axis is
changing by the same amount that a particular star moves around that axis,
therefore negating the motion, making it appear to be motionless.

Now if this is true, then to test whether the annual star trail exists, the
observer would have to travel north or south by a certain number of degrees for
each successive observation such that his path remains on the axis of rotation
in question. The problem here is that if we did this we would be reversing the
problem and should expect to see an annual trail even if Geo-centrism were the
truth because we would be observing based on a created axis.

Any axis we create will show what we should expect it to whether AC or GC is
the actual truth.

What does everyone think? I'm depressed.

JA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

---------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win \$10,000 every week.
---------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.20/1107 - Release Date: 3/11/2007
11:22 AM

---------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.20/1107 - Release Date: 3/11/2007
11:22 AM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com ```