[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts (Supplementary)
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:41:31 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M -- re Axes of rotation -- not material. I agree, they only exist as a
description of an effect. But were real, material axles to be put in their
place, there would be no change. You've seen astronauts spinning various
objects in zero g -- actually free fall is a better description -- one I seem
to recall was a squat round can which was spun like a wheel. Sure no axis was
visible but it would have been the same if it was real.
J A -- was my explanation of the incorrectness of your very elaborate
illustration lacking in some manner in your estimation? I think this is
important.
Allen D -- An extract of one of your recent posts to this thread -> Even
assuming that the base line makes no difference then the star trials will be
the same size as the nightly only they will exist around an entirly different
axis (the annual axis that is 23.44o offset from the nightly ones and it will
be different stars in the hierarchy of circles that make up the trails up and
down the axis.) Since Polaris would no longer lie on or near the axis of
rotation, it would now be further away from the axis even Paul according to
your own last drawing (which is a good drawing to demonstrate this) the further
a way a star is from the axis of rotation the larger its trail will be.....so
you will still see circles the only difference is that since stars are no
longer have the same distance from the axis of rotation that they did on the
other axis (nightly, it is 23.44o different) the various stars will have new
and different sizes then they did
before......Polaris will have a larger one now becuse it is further from the
axis of rotation.....but..others will have smaller ones because where in the
nightly star trails they were far from the axis of rotation, now they either
lie on or very close to the axis of rotation ..In fact, if you look at your own
diagram along with Jacks you should be able to see why...?.......NONE
EXIST!......... THUS THERE IS NO ROTATION!
Allen, this paragraph tells me that you do understand much of what I have been
saying. I am also impressed with your illustration 'Annual v Nightly.png'. The
only thing which is a problem is the usual problem -- I can't understand much
of your commentary. I would like to remedy this. Would you be willing to enter
into a collaboration with me where I paraphrase what you have said and you tell
me if indeed that is what you meant?
I don't intend to try to persuade you to agree with me or in any way to trick
you. I do warn you however that I fully expect that you will be convinced of my
view of this matter by the time we agree on the meaning of our joint efforts. I
am sufficiently keen for this that I will stay on line till at least 20h00 GMT
-- that's till after dawn. Please don't disappoint me.
In your reply -- to save time -- would you include a reason why I should
believe your statement that no ecliptic pole rotation is seen ie what tests
have been made to this end of which you are aware which support your assertion?
For my part, I have never seen such proof but that is, I contend, only because
no one has bothered to photograph it.
In this matter, see also another post from me shortly in this same thread
thread.
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:
