[geocentrism] Re: Heliocentrism is dead

    Jack,
   
  "What was the clinch - I think I missed it!"
     Below both conditions were addressed fixed and adjustable camera 
positions. 
  either one definitively excludes the possibility of a orbiting earth as per 
HC..... Although i admit Regner cant seem to grasp radial or rotational 
orientation...? I think he is just playing hard to get though...:-)

   
   
  1. I attached his diagram to this email as well... 
   
  Congratulations Paul !...
  Your diagram shows and just proved that if the earth did in fact go around 
the sun according to HC then the fixed camera focused ~parallel to the ecliptic 
(north or south) axis, over the course of six moths will be pointing in a 
entirely different direction and thus looking a different stars in a different 
ecliptic latitude of the celestial sphere in the sky ( not just different stars 
on the same ecliptic latitude) A wopping 24 degrees in a different direction 
altogether with entirly different stars ....NOW GO DO THAT AN SEE IF THAT EVER 
HAPPENS IN REALITY........hint....IT DOES NOT!!! .........Paul, I knew you were 
a closet geocentrist all the time.....:-)

   
  2. Now you may have a point about where the camera is pointing after 6 months 
in Pauls drawing, but you have not acknowledged that due to this motion the 
annual ring you have been depicting cannot be recorded. It could be recorded if 
it existed!  Ja, If you place your camera at 23.44o offset from polaris at 
midnight that by definition is parallel to the ecliptic axis according to HC 
..We would only be  looking for that axis  ..If you set this up every night 
with the same camera. ( non fixed camera).... If the motions as per HC existed 
the camera would have oreinted radialy by dfintion around that axis...and  the 
stars would move out of their latitiudes for different reasons then the ones 
you give.....However, in any case a fixed camera or not is irrelevant! .either 
case disproves HC!..In a fixed camera yes for the reasons i just gave Paul that 
would disprove HC...... but if you use a non fixed camera and adjust your 
camera to the same postion every night 23.44o from
 polaris you will still not get star trails becasue that motion on that axis 
does not exist! You say but ah that is becasue  you are using polaris as the 
guide post but..... I will say ah but that guide post (polaris) never moves 
angularly against the sky or ground and neither will the angle of your camera 
to the ground :-) Polaris does not moves radially around that axis and since 
polaris is so far away from the ecliptic axis of "rotation" if it existed then 
it would be a star trail by polaris that is the size of what the cephus stars 
are now. I f it were the difference in angle that the camera was facing over 
the course of a year that would be most noticable you would have to change the 
angle of the camera from either or both polaris or the ground but you do not! 
Thus there can be no additional motion becasuse the camera (angle to ground) 
and angle of camera to stars forms a strait line of sight the slightest 
deviation from that line of sight would show up.............. 
 ....You see i said the camera does not have to be fixed ( I said that for 
simplicity) and it does not. I only used it for simplicity sake becuse of other 
issues.....My point alalong has been that no matter which road you take in your 
example a fixed camera or a camera that is adjusted everynight to offset 23.44 
dgrees from polaris will lead you to the exact same conclustion...THE MOTION 
DOES NOT EXIST!         
  You have said to me that 24 hours later the camera is back at the same 
lattitude because 24 hours equals one rotation. 24 hours by definion places the 
observer in the same radial oreintaion it was the night before relitive to the 
sun. HC does not even argue this...I even use Paul's own diagram to show 
it!........ It is the sun not the stars that the ecliptic axis proceeds from. 
It is that axis not the NCP that is in question. This fact the radial geometry 
and postion of an observer every 24 hours is true even if HC's descriptions 
were true.... Like Philip you are confusing the termonlogy/descriptions with 
the Geomety.   .I as a GC would not use the same termonology/ descritption for 
the cause of sidreal days. However, that issue is moot, because reagaurless of 
why or how much the earth rotates on it's axis in 23h 56 min the geometry of 24 
hours in relation to the axis we are looking for is not in question by GC or 
HC.  In short sidreal days are irrelevant we know where
 the axis is and we know exactly when we are in a radial oreintaion to that 
axis therefore there is no way to argue that we cannot record photographicaly a 
"rotational conditon" over the course of a year, reagardless of any and all 
other supposed motions.
  It does not, it equals 1 rotation plus a fraction of a rotation, therefore 
the lattitude has changed each night. If it did not then 12 midnight would 
happen in the middle of the day 6 months later.
   
  JA,    
  Just a little further...... You don?t have to be looking at any axis to see 
the rotation on that axis. Thus as long as a observer take a photo of the stars 
from a radial ordination to the axis in question..even if the observers angle 
changes as in Paul?s diagram it will not affect the radial condition and thus 
the rotation only the shape of the circles and that is what Nevile was getting 
at in his post about wavy circles... Again you do not have to have the camera 
in the same angle in order to record the radial orientation to an axis which is 
rotation. You can change your angle to the nightly axis of rotation all year 
around and get the same n-s right Ascension relationships you do every night 
even at different angles.. Ja you are confusing the radial rotation with the 
angle at which you observe that rotation....even in Paul?s diagram it would be 
the same rotation only looking at it from a different angle.. either case 
disproves HC..
   
  PS it was more then just "a point" i made....Check Mate!
   
   
  Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    Congratulations Paul !.
   
  Your diagram shows and just proved that if the earth did in fact go around 
the sun according to HC then the fixed camera focused ~parallel to the ecliptic 
(north or south) axis, over the course of six moths will be pointing in a 
entirely different direction and thus looking a different stars in a different 
ecliptic latitude of the celestial sphere in the sky ( not just different stars 
on the same ecliptic latitude) A wopping 24 degrees in a different direction 
altogether with entirly different stars ....NOW GO DO THAT AN SEE IF THAT EVER 
HAPPENS IN REALITY........hint....IT DOES NOT!!! .........Paul, I knew you were 
a closet geocentrist all the time.....:-) 
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

          Dear Allen,
  What was the clinch - I think I missed it!
   
  Jack
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:15 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Heliocentrism is dead
  

  It means Game point ...we win...:-)
   
  HC is scientificaly untenable.....
   
  It means Paul & Regner have converted to GC.....ok well ............we are 
still waiting for that......:-o

Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      Dear Steven,
  What does this posting mean?
   
  Jack
   

PNG image

Other related posts: