[geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale

  Phil,
   
  Yes I can fly.  I?m not in any kind of trouble.  I am just a "red flag" which 
means I have to be careful of what sort of folks I allow myself to be seen or 
associated with with..?...wait??...oppps???? I better stay away from you 
geocentric quacks!....LOL :-D


philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:      and even to this day my 
name is kept on a FBI watch list?????.Allen. 
   
  Blimey!  Allen, are you allowed to fly? 
   
  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:28 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
  

  Paul,
  Just curious ..when exactly did I offend your sensitivities??.when A. I 
stated that I use the real thing too ..or B. when I said that I answered your 
question for the third time.. and I even thought we were in some agreement??
  If you want to attempt to play Regners "game" by ignoring the very questions 
you asked for and the relevant issues on the table by avoiding or ignoring the 
person you don?t like when they show you your error, that is your choice. 
However, that approach is neither scientific nor is it authoritative?. It is 
only foolish?.
   
   
  If you wish to defer to Regner, because he is a professional astronomer?.. 
..then by all means let Regner "deal with me"??. I was a professional in the 
sciences too???..I will not tell you what I was,?? but I will say this?.. I had 
one of the highest clearances in the country, direct access to the President of 
the United states of America and even to this day my name is kept on a FBI 
watch list?????.maybe I will be able to grasp his superior understanding??
   
  PS I post those last two post here so everyone can see that I did not avoid 
you or your question??Just in case you forgot where we were in all of this?..!?
   
   
   
  So do I........except I actualy use it...

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
    Allen D
I'd be careful about advising Regner to refer to a model. He doesn't need one. 
He plays with the real thing!   Paul D   
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  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.

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     DIV {   MARGIN: 0px  }        
    Allen D
  Well I don't think anyone would say that I didn't try but I have to bow to 
the inevitable. We achieved agreement on one -- uncontentious -- point after 
many hours of effort. The book is not worth the candle.
  Your tactics remain the declaration that your adversary's points are 
irrelevant or without merit or are in outright error; the repetitive assertion 
that you are right combined with statements of incredulous disbelief that he 
doesn't see things the way you do; burying your adversary in mountains of 
barely decipherable verbiage; plastic definitions; and an astounding 
determination to avoid answering questions put to you. In short -- you won't 
debate.
  I doubt I'll be bothering you further.
Paul D
  


  
---------------------------------
  National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. 
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV. 
    
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date: 11/11/2007 
10:12 AM

Other related posts: