[geocentrism] Re: Knockout for allen
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:57:38 -0700 (PDT)
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:
