[geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 08:40:35 +1000
I've done a full circle.. I think many have and are doing circles in this
discussion. But I should have remained with my intuition but I do not trust
intuition to be scientific..
No matter, its how we learn, suddenly something clicks into position out of the
confusion of words. Paul said,
I suggest that, in the heliocentric scenario, the effect would be to make the
NCP the new 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.
I'll pause here till you respond on this question. Paul D
This is where you tend to confuse the issue Paul.. In the GC issue, the
rotation of the stars would remain as they were , around the original celestial
axis at 23 degreees to the ecliptic. I get your point though. But you returned
my thoughts to my original contention, which was when I first proposed an idea
in support of what Neville was maintaining all the time, but with more
enlightenment this time round..
The full circle of my reasoning went like this.
1. I claimed that if the camera was fixed and allowed to rotate with any and
all the movements of the world, daily rotation and annual rotation , then one
would not be able to distinguish the annual star trail from the daily, because
the magnitude of scale made all such motions whether 2AU in diameter or 2 miles
in diameter, so close to the same as to not matter.
Easily proven. Take our star trail that was produced from a daily exposure on
the celestial pole using a fixed camera.. Note and record this trails diameter
and shape. This represents a turning circle base of the diameter of the earth.
Now at any time after dark, from the same position all things remaining the
same , take an exposure again with the camera doing one complete revolution, on
its own axis..This represents a turning circle base of the diameter of zero.
You will certainly note that this trails diameter and shape will be identical
to the first one as recorded.
Put the camera on a 20 ft turntable and do a revolution again. a turning circle
base of the diameter of 20 ft. You will still note that this trails diameter
and shape will be identical to the first one as recorded.
On the scale we are working, moving around 2AU will not change anything
either..
But there is an annual movement of rotation around the sun in HC. So how do we
get to tell one circle from the other when they all are the same shape size and
position , no matter whether the rotation iis 2 minutes 20,000 miles or 2AU? We
cannot leave the camera stationary and open for a year, nothing would be
accomplished.
I come back to my original intuitive suggestion.. We must cancel and
neutralise the circle caused by the daily rotation, by causing the camera
itself to counter rotate at an exact rotation rate equal to that of the earths
HC speed.
What is that? I ask because this is crucial, and it is a difficulty. I am
going to guess, but much thought must be put into this point. I think it must
be one solar day, not a sidereal day.
With this set up the camera will see over months of time the sidereal shift of
the stars. Of course it is not necessary to leave it on time exposure, but to
merely take time lapse exposures..We are plotting a curve. These can be at any
time and at any frequency but preferably regular. Over time of a year a circle
of dots will be printed which will have the same shape and size as the first
trail. Of that I am certain.
But cannot you all see? This same result would be obtained if the earth was
motionless and the stars themselves were moving... Nothing can be resolved to
settle GC versus HC by these experiments..
Even Parallax is effectively the same for either scenario, for this exact same
reason..
2AU or 20AU, is an insignificant zeroAU. Its a thousandth of a millimeter of a
dot. Relative to stellar distances the planets might as well be all stationary.
It is still the magnitude of scale..
Select any star in the sky, call it Sol, take a picture, and then try to mark
planet earth next to it TO SCALE..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 11:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
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).
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. 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. If GC is spot on then the stars
rotate around this celestial earth axis. If HC is spot on, then no stars rotate
anywhere, 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? I suggest that, in the
heliocentric scenario, the effect would be to make the NCP the new 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.
I'll pause here till you respond on this question.
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: 269.15.27/1121 - Release Date: 9/11/2007
7:29 PM
Other related posts:
