[geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Phil, I found out what category you're in. : ~ )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The initial impetus for developing a classification of mental disorders in the
United States was the need to collect statistical information. The first
official attempt was the 1840 census which used a single category,
"idiocy/insanity".
--- On Sun, 12/14/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 12:20 PM
Neville, Bernie may have a triple personality disorder..
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 6:00 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
Pawel,
My actual comment was that "in conventional teaching, the stars are effectively
at infinity." I did not say that they were at infinity (Polaris, for instance,
is stated as being ~ 430 l-y distant). It all comes down to the familiar
parallax effect of very distant objects in a local scale of distances.
Please consider signing up to the forum; you would be most welcome. I do not
usually prolong discussion in a go-between way.
Best wishes,
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
-----Original Message-----
From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:30:07 -0800 (PST)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
MATERIAL objects CAN'T be at "infinity" in numbers or amounts because, they are
MATERIAL. MATTER is FINITE. PK
True, but I think Neville was talking as regards to optics and telescopes
lenzes etc. Photo a star the camera is set at infinity. PM
I wasn't aware of that. PK
The world exhibits a strain at the equator of piN johns per km^2 which is
absent from the poles, which is exactly in accord with the
centrifugal/cetrepetal force due to a anglur momentum of a 24 hour cycle of
rotation, around a polar axis. Things get progresively heavier as one moves N
or S of the equator.
According to shanedk from youtube, who loves to "debunk" debunkers, it's only
0.3 %. According to others it's 0.9% and so on. There is no agreement to it.
However, there still should be a DIFFERENCE in weight. However... shipments of
commodities like coffee and OIL are NOT ADJUSTED to that supposed weight
changes!
What does it mean? Probably that there is NO weight difference because, the
Earth doesn't rotate at all. PK
Pawel Kolasa
--- On Sat, 12/13/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Saturday, December 13, 2008, 2:59 PM
Inserted
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: Geocentrism/RealityReviewed
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Polaris Effect
5.
A correct observation from Pawel.
The English term for 1,000,000,000 is a milliard. The American term is a
billion. In English, a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 which, to an American is a
trillion, whereas the English trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000. NJ
Yes, very well said. I just wanted to point out that, If somebody writes for
Americans, he should use American terms. PK Why, they only rule the world..
Once the masses find out, that will end quickly. By the way we already also use
the American billion 1000000,000000.. in australia . little "a" for the 70 th
state. We got $ this too.
Where were we? Oh yes, star trails. The reason that Pawel is incorrect is that,
in conventional teaching, the stars are effectively at infinity. NJ
MATERIAL objects CAN'T be at "infinity" in numbers or amounts because, they are
MATERIAL. MATTER is FINITE. PK True, but I think Neville was talking as
regards to optics and telescopes lenzes etc. Photo a star the camera is set at
infinity.
The 24-hour movement of the World around its alleged orbit then has no
observable effect of the sidereal NJ
I don't understand "sidereal". I don't understand this statement: "rotation of
the World about its polar axis". PK The world exhibits a strain at the
equator of piN johns per km^2 which is absent from the poles, which is exactly
in accord with the centrifugal/cetrepetal force due to a anglur momentum of a
24 hour cycle of rotation, around a polar axis. Things get progresively heavier
as one moves N or S of the equator.
I think NJ is correct in that a shift of stars in one day would be hardly
observable with the eyes. But instruements will most definitely show the near
single degree of movement.
Whilst I fully accept the observational data of heliocentrism, I do not accept
their physics which presumes to explain it. There is a possible alternative
view which is in accord with the Biblical record. Even agnostic scientists
will/can concur with that. Phil
Pawel Kolasa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.
A correct observation from Pawel.
The English term for 1,000,000,000 is a milliard. The American term is a
billion. In English, a billion is 1,000,000,000,000 which, to an American is a
trillion, whereas the English trillion is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Where were we? Oh yes, star trails. The reason that Pawel is incorrect is that,
in conventional teaching, the stars are effectively at infinity. The 24-hour
movement of the World around its alleged orbit then has no observable effect of
the sidereal rotation of the World about its polar axis.
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
I hear the statement that "it's wrong" but I get no link to an explanation
"why?".
Also, Neville must be from Europe because he uses word "milliard" instead of
"billion".
cheers,
Pawel
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Bernie,
No, this is incorrect.
Neville
www.realityreviewed.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.
Polaris Effect. by Pawel Kolasa
On several time-delayed pictures there are shown circulating stars. Supposedly,
because of Earth's movement around its own axis. However, their circulation is
in the wrong direction… If Earth is moving around, then the stars should "move"
horizontally, with slight bent upward on northern hemisphere and a slight bent
downward on southern hemisphere. That's because Earth is a sphere. The stars
should appear to move in opposite direction to Earth's movement. In fact, the
stars are moving in a circle, around a star Polaris. Hence, "Polaris effect".
The stars on the outside of Polaris move faster. It is because; the distance
they traveled is bigger. They also move in unison, which proves that they are
somehow connected. To make it even more puzzling, the time interval of the film
exposure does not match the part of the circle that the star would travel in
that part of day. I mean if the time exposure is 4 hours, then if 24 hours is
full circle then 4 hours
should be one sixth of the full circle. However, it's only about 1/12. The
direction of stars' rotation seems to be the same as Earth's… If Earth is
turning from left to right, then the stars should appear to turn from right to
left! If the stars move from left to right, then Earth may be stationary. The
Polaris star is always stationary. The only way a point can remain stationary,
is when both the observer and the point are stationary, or both move in unison.
Since the other stars move in unison relatively to Earth, the Polaris and the
Earth must be motionless.
Pawel Kolasa
Free 3D Earth Screensaver
Watch the Earth right on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/earth
Other related posts:
