[geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale

 
  Paul, I put the previous posting at bottom so you can see i have already 
answered you over and over again...?   
Allen D
              Your response to my addendum -
      What i said was right ..?..Each or both of earth's rotations in HC/AC are 
about "an (singular) axis..?....There are two rotataions, each one is on and 
has it's own axis(singular)..each individual axis is differnent from the other 
axis. The two axis are not equivilent, in that they are not in the same 
direction. However, they are both the exact same mechanical action/motion 
(rotation about "an axis"[singular]) using the exact same stars and exact same 
camera..and thus must produce the exact same observable effects... 

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
   
  Allen D
One point I made was not sufficiently defined. I said in my earlier post - 
  I can perceive only one axis of rotation -- 
  The reason I perceive only one axis of rotation is because that is what your 
statement said - 
  no differenece same action (rotaion about an axis) same stars, 
  Notice that -- "... an axis ..." . 'an' axis is one axis -- not two, not 
many. 
  Paul D
  OK The second thing we have reached agreement upon then is that in the 
heliocentric model, the Earth both rotates about its Geographical Polar Axis 
(which extended becomes the Celestial Polar Axis) (NCP)once per sidereal day 
and revolves in its orbit around the Ecliptic Pole (NEP)once in 365.25 days 
..YES.....while in the geocentric model, the Earth is stationary and the stars 
rotate around the Geographical Polar Axis (which extended becomes the Celestial 
Polar Axis) (NCP) once per sidereal day but no other (Rotataional 
motion)motion..YES
  If you agree to this, will you then proceed to answer my question (restated 
with amendment) - I have already answered this question twice now, this will be 
the third time..!? I will answere it here for the third time & include the last 
post where i answered it for the second time..?

    At this time, I pose the question, in the heliocentric model -- what would 
be the effect of changing the Earth's attitude so as to bring its axis of 
rotation NCP -- its Geographical Polar Axis -- into alignment with the Ecliptic 
Polar Axis NEP?
  I suggest that, in the heliocentric scenario, the effect of this change would 
be to make the NCP the new focus of nightly star trails, all other conditions 
previously agreed remaining true. 
  Two axis would still technically exist. However, since the baseline distance 
between the two would have no noticeable effect on the size of star trails 
because we are assuming that the stars are too far away to be affected by such 
a small change....THEN.. The two would ~ act as one, in the sense that you 
could not distinguish one from the other, because there would be no change in 
angle from each other and since the diameter of rotation (earth around the sun/ 
NEP/base line) would not affect anything there would be no way to tell one from 
the other. The NEP & NEC would in effect appear to be ~ one and the same 
thing....as i said before this is all very very irrelevant....Why?...This would 
only and could only hold true if and only if the NCP & NEP were facing the same 
direction. However, they are not according to HC/AC, and the size of star 
trails are determined not by the base line but rather by the distance from the 
axis of rotation. Since the axis face different
 directions the stars cannot have the same distance. Therefore your argument is 
a futile exercise in "what if", that dose not affect or determine any outcome 
of what we are discussing?.
  By now, even Regner if he is keeping up with these discussions, even he 
should be able to see his very, very big, big problem, regardless of what model 
he wants to believe in or insist upon.  If he is honest, however, sooner or 
latter he will have to acknowledge the answerer to his own question and so will 
you Paul?Is geocentrism supported by facts? ??Absolutely!.. and HC/AC is 
absolutely proven untenable! 
   
  I am attaching the diagrams again with the NCP & NEP  marked for 
everyone......
   
  And that's it for tonight/morning.
  Paul D

  

IF you will read my last post i have already covered this matterial you keep 
asking me a answer to..?..here it is again......

Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

                  Paul,
   there are two central issues in this post.....i labled them one and 
two.........All your other comments simply say look at the next ...so, i 
did,...... Im placing the entire last post at the bottom of this post so the 
full context will be avilible to anyone reading it without reasearching it....
   


    1. I'll pause here till you respond on this question.
  I will pause here till you address my question. Which question?.....the one 
where you ask : I pose the question, what would be the effect of changing the 
Earth's attitude so as to bring its axis of rotation -- its Geographical Polar 
Axis -- into alignment with the Ecliptic Polar Axis?...?.I answered it in the 
last post,  even though it is a completly and an entirly irrelevant question 
!?...I said ....(if you did that you would in effect only have one axis not  
two axis, unless the baseline distance did matter).......There is a simple one 
line answer which will lead to the next question. I have to do it this way -- 
if I ask several questions in one post you'll bury the planet in paper in your 
response on your own.
   
  2. At this time, I pose the question, what would be the effect of changing 
the Earth's attitude so as to bring its axis of rotation -- its Geographical 
Polar Axis -- into alignment with the Ecliptic Polar Axis?   What? how do you 
change the earths axis or rotaion?...(if you did that you would in effect only 
have one axis not  two axis, unless the baseline distance did matter) ..You 
cant change the axis or make them equivilant, therfore, this "thought 
experiment" does not nor will not affect what is under discussion...We are 
looking at the two axis that the earth does rotate on in the HC system and how 
that must manifest itself in the sky..?.....the two axis do not "mask" each 
other nor are they even capable of such in the HC/AC system... I don't care 
what you call it -- it is a legitimate question.   NO Paul it is not  a 
?legitimate question?. The answer to this question does not and will not and 
could  not affect what we must observe now with the two axis in HC/AC, as
 per HC, in order for the HC/AC position to be valid   Your question nor its 
answer will have any bering on that issue, nor could it. However, what ever the 
reason is that you think it is relevant is probably also the very reason you 
can't see the obvious.... Further the fact that you think it is relevant 
demonstrates to me, regardless of your adamant declarations that you do 
understand the mechanics, that in fact you obviously do not.  If the base line 
made a difference then there would be larger star trails annually if the 
baseline does not then there would be no difference in the daily or nightly. 
However, in any case, since the axis are pointing in two different directions, 
that issue is moot. The reason why is that the size of star trails is dependent 
upon the distance of the star from the axis of rotation. In the HC/AC model 
there are two that point in different directions. As such, all the stars cannot 
have the same distance from both axis simultaneously. The only
 way for the stars to have the same distance from both axis simultaneously is 
if and only if the two axis lined up with each other as you suggest. However, 
they do not. That is killer fact, they don?t!......Therefore the baseline 
distance and how that might affect anything is irrelevant to this discussion 
and the effects in question regardless of if the baseline distance would have 
an affect on the size of nightly v annual star trails or not???!?
Skip forward to the next comment in this colour.

   
   
  

  
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
   
   
   
   
   
  Paul, i comment in Blue .....

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
      
    Allen D
  Well the body of the text is getting untidy so -- a new piece of paper.
  At this time we have agreed that so long as an object on the line of the axis 
of rotation of the Earth (or the stars) appears in the frame of the camera, 
then that point will be the centre of circular star trails recorded providing 
only that the camera has a fixed relationship with the Earth.
  As Neville J puts it -
  We attach the camera to the ground we stand on and we leave it alone for the 
period in question.
If, when we develop the film, there is rotation of the stars about an axis, 
then either the World has rotated and the stars are stationary (HC), or the 
stars have rotated in the opposite direction whilst the World is stationary 
(GC).Right...so how do we know which is which?......The only way to know the 
difference is to look for the secondary rotation that HC/AC DEMANDS..for the 
earth and any camera attached to it.......Which if you can reign in your 
enthusiasm -- I'll get to. But you always want to snow me with mountains of 
hastily written stuff which if I were to respond to in kind and you responded 
to my response in kind ... well we'd bury the planet in paper in a week.
But here is the sticking point (from the last post) -
    It gets more difficult to visualise the other part. No it is not. It is the 
exact same action, with the exact same stars, only a larger motion ..What is 
difficult to visualise is the fact that we don't see it, when we see the other 
for the same reasons, and yet you insist that it exist.......I do not concede 
this point yet as there is a fundamental difference. no differenece same action 
(rotaion about an axis) same stars, same camera... concede?..its a 
indisputiable fact, if you wish to deny that, you can but that will allways be 
the reason you cant fully appreciate the problem
  In your comments above, I can perceive only one axis of rotation -- about the 
Earth Geographic Polar Axis which when extended becomes the Celestial Polar 
Axis... We can't go any further untill you can understand the camera fixed to a 
spot on the earth is itself is not only in rotaion nightly around the NCP I 
wonder just how many times I have to tell you that I understand that before you 
believe me? Loook again at the statement I made above describing just where we 
have reached. Please! but also it is in rotaion about the North Ecliptic 
Pole/axis,(NEP) with a period/ rate of rotation of one year, around the sun. 
.............This is what I'm leading up to. Please -- patience! Skip forward 
to the next comment in this colour.
   
  ......I will address the rest of the post you we realy need to pause here 
untill you can grasp this fact, which is a fact even according to HC/AC ..this 
fact is HC's dogma not GC's 
   
  .....................If that roation realy existed it would produce trails of 
stars around that axis not just the celesital pole axis. the rate of the two 
rotations is different but the rotaion either exist or it does not. if it does 
there must be a path of the star whoese arc is dependent upon the distance of 
the star to that axis.....there is no way around this..The fact is there is no 
other paths I have admitted that this is the determining factor in the focus of 
star trails obtained from a stationary camera nailed to the Earth. All this is 
summed up in Philip M's words -
    ... All of the stars as observed on earth rotate around the celestial axis 
for no other reason than that the world turns. YES, that is the point! If the 
world "turns" (the correct term would be rotate in either case) around the sun 
then it would show up, the fact that it does not show up proves the world does 
not "turn" about the sun. If GC is spot on then the stars rotate around this 
celestial earth axis. If HC is spot on, then no stars rotate anywhere, NO, the 
stars rotate around the earth nightly that is what produces star trails ..? and 
certainly not around the ecliptic.... [Emphasis added].
  Further down he alludes to changing the Earth's axis of rotation.  At this 
time, I pose the question, what would be the effect of changing the Earth's 
attitude so as to bring its axis of rotation -- its Geographical Polar Axis -- 
into alignment with the Ecliptic Polar Axis?
  What? how do you change the earths axis or rotaion?...(if you did that you 
would in effect only have one axis not  two axis, unless the baseline distance 
did matter) ..You cant change the axis or make them equivilant, therfore, this 
"thought experiment" does not nor will not affect what is under discussion...We 
are looking at the two axis that the earth does rotate on in the HC system and 
how that must manifest itself in the sky..?.....the two axis do not "mask" each 
other nor are they even capable of such in the HC/AC system... I don't care 
what you call it -- it is a legitimate question. Skip forward to the next 
comment in this colour.
   I suggest that, in the heliocentric scenario, the effect would be to make 
the NCP the new focus of nightly star trails, The NCP is the focus of nightly 
star trails..?  all other conditions previously agreed remaining true. In the 
geocentric scenario, the universe's axis of rotation would have to be changed 
at the same time...?? what are you talking about?...In GC the universe rotates 
on one axis only and produces one motion attributed to rotation...in HC the 
earth rotates on two separate and distinct axis of rotation and must be able to 
demonstrate both for the same reasons that the nightly one does...
  I'll pause here till you respond on this question.
  I will pause here till you address my question. There is a simple one line 
answer which will lead to the next question. I have to do it this way -- if I 
ask several questions in one post you'll bury the planet in paper in your 
response on your own.






PNG image

PNG image

PNG image

PNG image

Other related posts: