[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:15:27 +0000 (GMT)
Allen D
Comments below in this colour.
If you would take the time to address others in a fashion which indicates that
you have respect for them, you would not draw the flack that you do from both
Philip M, myself and others. It must have been going on for a large part of
your life. Do you think you might ever profit from this advice?
In the meantime, I will again attempt to decipher your rather inconsiderate
offerings below, as stated, in this colour.
Paul,
me in blue...........
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
I'm having just as much trouble deciphering your drawings as I do with your
narratives. I'm going to give you some idea just what problems I have with your
drawings first.
>>>>> 2 axis of rotation.jpg. (This is a repeat in case you missed it the first
>>>>> time).
First item --
If A demonstrates differences in circles due to changes in latitude (radius)
Then no claim can be made that stars are too far away to be affected by a
change in radius.
and
2. Closer to the equator the larger the circles & Closer to the poles the
smaller the circles. Thus the radius of rotation is a factor in the size of the
star trails.....
A change in latitude will make no difference to the diameter of a star trail.
Where do you get these ideas? I calculated the magnitude of these factors in
another post and Philip M also commented, essentially in agreement. While he
didn't comment directly on this, Neville has granted that the stars, if greatly
distant, do kill all these effects to which you seem to be alluding.
Ok all. I have just come off the phone with the local Observatory at
Maidenwell Qld.
You obviously did not read what the HC scientist to those questions posed by
Philip himself..................
"Quite simple. The earth is tilted at that part of the sky. The tilt is
maintained toward that part of the sky throughout the orbit around the sun, and
so the star always appears in the same spot." I don't recall the context and
I'm not going to look it up, but here he -- the scientist -- is simply stating
the obvious -- a star which happens to lie on the extended axis of rotation of
a planet will indeed 'keep station'.
"Ok!" I was already confirmed in what MS observed, that Steven was citing the
officially accepted observation, but I wanted to now stir his education in
geometry.
"You are saying that if the observer moves over a base line equal to the
diameter of the earth the apex of the triangle with that star will appear to
prescribe a circle. Yet if the same observer moves over a base line equal to
the diameter of the earths orbit, over a year, the apex of the triangle with
the same star will not change its position at all."
"thats right."
He didn't seem to understand my simple geometrical example.. If my geometry
was wrong, then he should have been able to expose the error of my reasoning..
Yet he went to the trouble to explain that the observer on the equator during
our daily rotation will see a greater deviation than one closer to the poles.
This is third person reporting and I didn't hear the question so I cannot
comment.
Second item --
3. The radius of "B" is X times larger and thus should demonstrate
proportionally larger circles either at the poles or the equator about either
the 23 (deg) or at 90 (deg) axis over the course of a year.
You seem to have no idea of the mechanism for generating star trails because if
you did you would not make this statement.
No you obviously have no idea what the defintion of proportion is I have an
adequate understanding of proportion. or you have no idea about what the
mechainsim is that produces star trails, which is rotaion I went to the
trouble of drawing a simple picture of this but your response was simply [ Your
illustration shows a star offset from a axis.. i think you missed my point ..it
does not matter which axis you pick the nightly or annual, stars that have the
same relative offset on those two axis cannot demonstrated smaller circles on
the annual while showing larger ones on the nightly... ] What in the world does
that mean????? about an axis of a given radius .............what part do you
not understand? Large chunks of it Allen -- you keep leaving words out. Here is
another example that Philip M complained about [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] n these words [ what in the world does that mean? Philip. ] If a
rotaion [Is the 't' on your keyboard faulty? Keyboards are cheap these days.]
of radus [What is a 'rotaion of radus'?] produces a star trail, what in the
world makes you think that a rotation about a larger radius will not do the
same in some proportion? Because the radius of rotation is trivial in
comparison to the distance to the two stars in question and essentially plays
no part in the process. all proportions ar not linear......not nessisarialy
23000 times larger but larger in some porportion never the less?
Proportion:
1. comparative relation between things or magnitudes as to size, quantity,
number, etc.; ratio.
2.proper relation between things or parts:
Third item --
4. Any precession (not to mention around an ~10mil km elliptical orbit) You
didn't address the "~10mil km elliptical orbit" question. to account for this
in the north would have to manifest itself in the south. Because, even
differences in degrees of latitude are enough deviation to demonstrate an
affect (sic) on the size of the nightly star trails.
Precession is not relied upon by heliocentrists for the explanation of star
trails nor do heliocentrists make any statement that this has any effect --
magnified or not -- in the south. I have no idea what has a "~10mil km
elliptical orbit". And again, latitude has no bearing on star trails.
I did not say they did ..The fact that you have no idea what i am talking about
is quite obvious Isn't that what I've been complaining about mate!..........
the term "this is refering to the annual motion....ummm...no star trails.......
.that is the topic of this discussion....umm.....MS claims the folloing as
brought out in a converstaion that philip had with a MS astronomer....
"Quite simple. The earth is tilted at that part of the sky. The tilt is
maintained toward that part of the sky throughout the orbit around the sun, and
so the star always appears in the same spot." I addressed this the first time
you raised it above. Had you forgotten or are you repeating for effect? (You do
tend to do that rather often!)
Ummm.....They rely on it for the lack of star trails not to produce star
trails,.....Wake up Paul....the sky is falling...lol Very droll!
Fourth item --
4. No difference is observed.
For your interest only -- you may wish to re-number it 5.!
Fifth item --
Conclusion: There is no orbit around radius "B"
This whole argument is what is known as a 'Straw Man' -- pretending to
represent the opponent's position and deliberately designed to fail. Now that
you've been rumbled, do you wish to reconsider?
Now i dont have a clue what you are talking about..'straw man'..where? Go back
up to the top and start again. This is what I have been describing in my
complaints about your illustrations. You see, pretending heliocentrists say
somethingthat they didn't say and then demonstrating that it is wrong is using
the tactic of the straww man....There are star trails produced by the mechinims
of rotion aobut the nightly aixis Radius "A" we agree on that No we don't --
the radius of the rotation has no discernable effect on the matter....There is
none around the annual axis radius "B" which is 23,000 times larger Again --
the radius of the rotation of the observer has no bearing on the size of the
star trails where the stars are at a great distance....no star trails = no
motion.. !? If I keep trying, I believe that eventually you will have to look
where I'm pointing. Neville has the same trouble.
>>>>>>>>>> 360.jpg
Well I've been looking at this one for some time now, and while I think that,
from the commentary in your posts, I've got some idea of what it is you're
trying to illustrate, the best summing up I can make is that it simply is not
clear. I would make one comment though -- and this is common to the previous
illustration -- you refer to the "Green arrow is the rotation about the 90
(deg) axis to the ecliptic plane". It appears that you are implying that the
Earth is centred on the ecliptic axis when it certainly is not.
I've attached another drawing -- I know mine are not as flash as yours but I
think they work anyway -- which depicts the Solar System as Heliocentrists see
it. Would you comment an any difficulties you see with this? (Your two drawings
are heliocentric in nature).
I realy do like your diagram, i mean that..i will use it...... and if you would
only bother to look at, you might see the error of your reasoning (or rather
lack thereof)
1. Your arrows are pointing at intervals of 23h 56 min not 24 hours you keep
suggesting in your experiments..?? you cant even be consistent in your own
constructs.!? Notice the sub heading above? Where I defined what these comments
are about? Here it is again -- >>>>>>>>>> 360.jpg!!! That means these comments
are about your illustration "360.jpg" In the top right hand corner you have
three arrows pointing out radially adjacent to the legend "Every 23h 56m + the
earth ...". My drawing, which you seem to like ,showed how the arrows should
point if the interval is 23h 56m 4.091s. The 24h I "...keep suggesting..." is
in relation to my explanation of how to record a star trail caused by
revolution about the ecliptic.
2. your arrows are point to a star(s) in the general direction to the ecliptic
plane.!..........Now point your arrows up 90o and you should NOW have an
epiphany.... Did you not notice the narrow section on the left of my drawing,
which you seem to like, which illustrates just this point. I admit it is in
vertical format but it is quite visible and if you have trouble reading the
vertical print, your picture viewer should be able to rotate it through 90
deg.... ( about the direction of rotation and how star trails are produced)
........hint.............NIGHTLY ROTATION PRODUCES STAR TRAILS
NIGHTLY.................. ..SEE THE ROTATION ABOUT THE SUN. (on that 90o
axis).......WHERE ARE THE STAR TRAILS AROUND THAT AXIS?........second
hint........ THEY DON’T EXIST!.......... my goodness Paul..........
You either wilfully or ignorantly, realy do have a 2d perception in a 3d
universe..I vote willfully...so as not to have to let your cherished ideas die
and get buried.....for cyring out loud, the corpse is starting to reek the
most foul stench.....!?
You still haven't answered the question attached to the drawing
SolarSystem.jpg. Remember -- it is not the answer to what is the meaning of
life, the universe and everything -- it is an attempt to create agreed common
ground which we both understand and which might serve as a basis for continuing
this debate.
Depending on your response to this post, we may be able to continue the debate
but if you are unable to grant my points, we have little common ground.
Paul D
Finally Allen (back in black since I am no longer commenting) I have to confess
that I have to exercise great restraint at times in order to continue to
address you in polite terms. I am sure others with whom you interact have the
same problem. Please make an attempt to understand what others are saying and
please make an attempt to cast your offerings and responses in intelligeble
language. I should not have to spend many times the time I spend reading other
people's posts reading yours.
Paul D
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/
Other related posts:
