[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
What you guys cant seem to get your head around is that the nightly trails
are due to a observers change in orientation to the stars nightly 360o. A
rotation around a axis period! They exist period! Every 23 hour and 56 min +
the earth is in the same rotational position it was the night before over the
course of a year and marks out a ROTAION?If the stars were to far away they
would not produce star trails around that annual radius they certainly would
not produce start trails from a rotation who?s radius is 23,000 times
smaller..!? It is the same cause the observer moves though 360o change in his
orientation to the stars. The annual rotation would have to produce at least
star trails at least the same size as the nightly because it is the same
mechanical action. Even If they did produce the same size trails, (they produce
none) then you could?..caugh?..caugh?claim you would not see any bigger trails
because they were too far away to make the them any bigger ?but there
are no star trails! No trails, the same size or any size,.. none!!!! If the
rotation of the observer orientation to the stars on such a small daily radius
produces those trails due to a change in 360o orientation to the stars nightly
?..well?.that is exactly what you do annually over a much larger radius. The
difference is annually they do not produce anything , even thought the observer
has still traversed thorough all 360O of orientation to the stars just as he
does on the nightly axis , the only difference is it is a radius that is 23,000
times larger and NO TRAILS EXIST ON THE ANNUAL AXIS !? The distance to the
stars is irrelevant ..why??.. because the trails are produced nightly due to a
change in the observers orientation to the stars about a axis of rotation on
such a small radius.. If star trails could not be produced around the annual
axis because they are too far away then there is no way to account for the
nightly ones??..IT?S THE SAME STARS!!! And IT?S THE SAME
IDENTICAL ACTION, only larger (except that the change in orientation to the
stars takes place around a axis of rotation who?s radius is 23,000 times
larger) !? The absolute best you could claim to "explain" this is to say that
the y are not any larger around the annual axis (same size) because even that
much of a change in radius or rotation (around the sun) would not make a
difference, ??????????. BUT THEY DON?T EXIST AT ALL!
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Re this thread, and
Regner's question, I have to withdraw my previous statement that observations
of the rotations of the North or South stars or any stars for that matter, are
evidence of support for geocentrism.
One would have to considerably reduce the alleged and accepted distances
..NO...distiance is irrelevant....these stars are from the solar system, for
this hypotheses to have any value. I see no evidence that would convince me
that these distances are wrong.
I apologise for any distraction I caused. It was fun though, as I was forced
to get with the facts, which I now want to forget.
I continue to hold to my original stated position in support of geocentrism,
namely that the laws of Newton hold true but are incomplete without the effect
of an aether being included. Therefore I do not have any facts as such, but
merely a hypotheses , in support of geocentrism.
Philip.
Other related posts:
