[geocentrism] Re: Polaris Effect
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:59:18 +1000
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
Other related posts:
