[geocentrism] Re: Knockout for allen

1 the astronomer stated it would be diferent at different lattitudes..and he is 
not the first to say that either..ummmm
   
  2.Refer to my earlier post and chart....There is noticable 8% eliptical 
difference between what would be the two cirlcles if they existed.....caused by 
what ever rotation exist on the difference of those two axis......That would be 
noticable...ummm...

philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      Allen I did read the whole post. You did not. I explained that the 
astronomer thought I was talking about the variation of the angle to the 
horizon..  which gave the latitude. The line to the star was/is constant , from 
anywhere. It was the horizon line that was movable..  
   
  lastly and finally..  I accept that the annual rotation of the orbit of the 
sun would produce a circular trail, None has denied that, but this trail would 
be in the same place relatively, and the same size relatively as the daily 
record. Therefore it would be un recordable. 
   
  Only if the earth could be stopped rotating for a year, whilst the record was 
taken would this annual rotation show up on the film, because as Neville has 
shown, "The stars are so far away in the heliocentric idea that the difference 
in radius between R and 1AU is negligible (manifesting itself only in tiny 
parallax and slightly elliptical trails as opposed to circular trails).end 
Neville's quote" 

  Allen this does not require you to have any brains, just the will to look for 
the truth without grasping straws. Regner has forced us to make a case within 
HC science parameters.. That is what I am trying to do. 
   
   So now I'm trying to think of a way to stop the earth rotating for a year as 
I record the annual trail..  ha ha !! ha ha!  by George, you gott it..  
   
  Genius  genius   ......next post...  
   
  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:49 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Knockout for allen
  

    1. Like i said Philip...even if it were wrong....it makes not difference 
..read the rest of the post you selectively quoted from...
  2 ......never mind reread it again.....

   
  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."    
  "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. 

  it is obvious that he did understand you......his answer is HC/AC dogma...
   
   
    2. Even if Paul was right and the AC/HC astronomer was wrong on that issue, 
that whole issue is moot!... I just was not going to let Paul get away with 
it...However, the issue is the fact that star trails exist because of rotation 
around the nightly axis...(the annual axis is a real axis that is larger not 
smaller then the nightly one. Regardless of what size they would be 
"proportionally" around that axis , [earth's orbit] they should at least exist 
) The rotation around that annual axis is the exact same kind of rotaion with 
the exact same view opportunity with the exact same stars with the same 
observer, camera..etc..... 
   
  I cant understand why this is so hard.........Nevile, there is much work to 
be done.....i think we need a HC/AC sim in maya or somthing...?



philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:           You have gotten it 
wrong Allen..  even if it was due to my own confused state at the time, which I 
cleared up later. Take this single part of yours below as an example of our 
combined error which Neville also corrected. 
   
    PM asked :  Does the view of the rotation of that star vary proportionally 
with the radius of  rotation of the observer..
   
   
  Allen  1. that is exactly what the astronomer told you....
   
  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." 
   
   

  ..that astronomer probably misunderstood my question or I did. We were 
confusing angle to the horizon with angle of observation .  old subject. 
   
  look carefully at the above.. as selected here  
   
  this question, 
  Does the view of the rotation of that star vary proportionally with the 
radius of  rotation of the observer..
  got this answer, 
    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." 
   
  Which is as Neville said, a big NO  NO. 
   
  The answer is, "no." The stars are so far away in the heliocentric idea that 
the difference in radius between R and 1AU is negligible (manifesting itself 
only in tiny parallax and slightly elliptical trails as opposed to circular 
trails).

  The rest of your post is irrelevant. The point has been resolved.  
   
  Philip  

   
   
    
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 30/10/2007 
6:26 PM

Other related posts: