[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts (Supplementary)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:38:47 +1000
> I know....You are a genius!..... and your dad is a visionary/ (on this
> issue)...../
lol, thanks, I noticed though "on this issue", lol again, perhaps a
reference to my serious studies relating to the concave Earth!
Steven
Thats ok Steven, genius is known to be on the edge of Madness.. If we go too
far, they get jealous, and next thing we know we is in the loony bin..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:05 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts (Supplementary)
Allen Daves wrote:
> I know....You are a genius!..... and your dad is a visionary/ (on this
> issue)...../
lol, thanks, I noticed though "on this issue", lol again, perhaps a
reference to my serious studies relating to the concave Earth!
Steven.
> //
> //
>
> */Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
>
> Allen Daves wrote:
>> Steven,
>>
>> I think it is imporataint to point out that a camera always
>> points to the nightl sky........ to "have your back to the axis
>> of roation" _*is a meaningless concept to a camera (camera
>> film)*_........It is the rotaion of the camera/ film from what
>> ever angle is the intial camera angle it is set to. As long as
>> the camera roatates around the axis the roation, it will be
>> recorded and is not restricted to a ceratin time..ie expsoures or
>> 3-4 hours per night/ (midnight at the center point of the
>> exposure)/ over the course of the year will cause the camera and
>> flim to rotate throught all 360 degrees of roation around the
>> solar axis.....period! a camera has no back if looking up at the
>> night sky. If that roation cannot be captured on film then there
>> is absolutly no way the nightly rotaion could be captured. The
>> only differnce between the two rotaions is the path of
>> rotaion and the larger/longer time needed/involved for capturing
>> the second rotation in the other directions on film......
> Ok thanks, don't forget, I first thought of the Celestial Poles
> argument! But it did need Dad to finalize it.
>>
>> */Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
>>
>> Phillip Stott wrote:
>> > Why Steven?
>> >
>> > We need the axis of rotation at our back, and that is near
>> enough the
>> > sun from an HS perspective.
>> Your correct. :-) I agree, actually, it is 24 hours that is
>> essential
>> for this.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Steven.
>> >
>> > All the best
>> >
>> > Philip Stott
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Jones"
>> >
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 3:58 PM
>> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts
>> > (Supplementary)
>> >
>> >
>> >> Phillip Stott wrote:
>> >>> Consider this from HS perspective
>> >>> Nightly rotation. Observer looks out with his back to
>> axis of
>> >>> rotation. Take snapshots every few minutes. Star trails
>> observed.
>> >>> Annual rotation. Observer must again have his back to tha
>> axis of
>> >>> rotation, but the rotation of earth complicates the
>> motion, now only
>> >>> at midnight does the observer have his back to the axis
>> of rotation.
>> >>> So take a snapshot each midnight. Star trails observed.
>> >> No, it should be a snapshot every 23h 56m.
>> >>
>> >> Steven.
>> >>> GS view exactly as HS but relative motion explanation.
>> >>> Philip Stott
>> >>>
>> >>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>> *From:* j a
>> >>> *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>> *Sent:* Friday, November 02, 2007 4:24 PM
>> >>> *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by
>> facts
>> >>> (Supplementary)
>> >>>
>> >>> Paul,
>> >>> As I said in another post, I cannot see how pointing the
>> camera in
>> >>> any particular direction would affect what is recorded.
>> What I
>> >>> have since been working on is the fact that the camera is not
>> >>> moving with the axis of rotation for the annual trail but
>> is for
>> >>> the nightly trail. I am trying to get a grip on how this
>> effects
>> >>> what we should expect to see.
>> >>> JA
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> */Paul Deema /* wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> __________________________________________________
>> >>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> >>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
>> around
>> >>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> >>> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.16/1102 -
>> Release Date:
>> >>> 10/31/2007 4:38 PM
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus
>> Database:
>> >> 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 11/5/2007 4:36 AM
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.22/1111 - Release Date: 5/11/2007
4:36 AM
Other related posts:
