[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 13:59:50 -0800 (PST)
Allen,
Allow me to demonstrate. Actually, your mention of the helicopter is what got
my confused questioning to gel into something I could better understand, so I
have used the helicopter as my device. I found this much easier to visualize
and draw the motions. The Helicopters body will represent whatever axis we are
considering. The box on the ground beside the helicopter is any star you want
to consider a star trail for. The rotor is either the baseline of earths radius
or its orbit depending on whether you are talking about the nightly or annual
trail. The Camera on the end of the rotor the camera sitting on a tripod
anywhere on the earth.
Drawings 1, 2, 3 are of the setup of my system to simulate the nightly star
circle. The only difference between 1,2&3 is that I am increasing the length of
the rotor axis, so that you can see where the circle produced is heading as the
distance begins to negate the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7 shows the
positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 9 shows the
results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one revolution in
each of the three drawings). The circle is progressively moving to center on
the axis of rotation. Exactly what we see in the sky and what your model
predicts.
Drawings 4, 5, 6 are of the setup of my system to simulate the annual star
circle. The only difference between 4,5&6 is that I am increasing the length of
the rotor axis, so that you can see where the circle produced is heading as the
distance becomes more important than the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7
shows the positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 8
shows the results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one
revolution in each of the three drawings). Both circles (the axis circle and
the box circle) are decreasing in size and will diapear into a dot with enough
distance. Exactly what we see in the sky, but not what you are predicting.
So what is different in my model to yours? If your camera takes pictures 24
hours apart, you are not taking into consideration that the camera has not
rotated with the axis of rotation you are trying to record, and as my model
shows, that is all the difference needed to make the annual trails disapear.
This is not a proof of HC, only a disproof of the disproof, which are not the
same.
JA...
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ja,
1. I would like to see this a little more readable..but all you are showing
us is two sets of circles drawn form two differnt angles that merge...In HC the
angles do not merge at the observerss position (paper on which the circles are
drawn) they are diverging at the observers location in HC look at the modle!.
The photographic paper records the events not some imagined inverse projected
image in the sky..
2.Even if what you are proposing here were true ................Look at your
own drawing.......The white paths diverge from the blue ones.......thats our
postion not HC's.......so what does this prove.....?
3.Tthis does not show why or how my experiement does or will not
work.........if you bother to do the experiment you will see that the
experiment works and there is no other explaination then the motion does not
exist.
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I hate to say this, but I accept your double dog dare. I will post my
"proof" that shows why no annual trails will be seen in HC, but first I must
make it readable, plus it's way past lunch time. Then I'll point out the
difference between them. I'll attach unreadable anyway for now.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
LOOK CLOSELY AT THE ATTACHED DIAGRAM........ NOW TELL ME WHY THIS WORKS AND
HC IS UNNOTICABLE DOES NOT..... I HAVE TAKEN ALL THE GUESS WORK OUT OF THE
CAMERA ANGLES AND PEOPLES BACK TO AXIS OF ROTAION AND SCALE AND EVERYTHING
ELSE.........!?
I HERBY ENVOKE THE DUOUBLE DOG DARE FOR REGNER, OR ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER,
TO SHOW ME "THE ERROR OF MY WAYS"......
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Philip,
With respect, and despite your trifold repetition posting, it is not Allen but
yourself who misses the point, because you comment upon, "our inability to
visualise why a camera will not detect which system is actually moving." In
this comment you simply assert that the camera cannot detect something which
you assume is there. But the camera could detect it, the reason it does not is
because the second component of motion is not there. This second component of
motion is NOT equivalent WITH RESPECT TO THE BACKGROUND STARS between
heliocentric and geocentric models.
The camera does detect what is moving, that is the entire point. Regner, as far
as I am aware, since I was away at the time, wanted some proof of geocentrism
did he not? Here it is. One set of star trails predicted by geocentrism and two
sets predicted by heliocentrism, for exactly the same reasons. What do we
observe? One set. So which model is demonstrably wrong?
Uhmmm, difficult question.
What you are doing is quoting effects which are explainable in both systems.
What we are doing is offering a proof of one system over another. Something
which cannot be explained away in the heliocentric model or, if it can, Regner
has not yet attempted to do it.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:02:19 +1000
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said...
What you and miss is the fact "that newton does not pretend to know why they
act the way they act. Newton does not know what the mechanical force is...he is
only explaing it..his laws are descritptions of observation "
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
And that is why I also said such has no bearing on the question..as regards
Geocentrism being explainable within his "laws are exact descritptions of
observation" .. and I also said, and will say it three times again,
"We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep
running away from it? " We have known about, and discussed this here for
years, why do we keep running away from it? We have known about, and discussed
this here for years, why do we keep running away from it?
You went into a long winded nothing that failed to eplain what is observed ,
namely the world reacts against a flywheel, and therefore must be moving
according to all the known mechanical laws of science..
You seem to have missed what I also said, so I'll say again it three times..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system. In Newtonian physics
thats the proof of the HC systemIn Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC
system..
and We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm
hoping Robert with GWW can do that. We need to fault Newtons laws and prove
it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. We need to
fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping Robert with
GWW can do that.
And you and me and all are not going to do that by talking about illusions
caused by our inability to visualise why a camera will not detect which system
is actually moving.. Nor will we do that by repeating over and over that
Newton is wrong, unless you can prove he is wrong and supply an acceptable
alternative theory..
I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do
that. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
Now please go back and DO the flywheel experiment for an hour.. not think
about it ... do it..
Philip.
---------------------------------
Get Free 5GB Email â?? Check out spam free email with many cool features!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
Other related posts:
