[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

  • From: Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:28:56 +0000

I do happen to possess very spatial thinking, however, these drawings are not easy! I have an excellent (serious understatement) Russian MS-DOS package, perhaps I should use it and create a video, it would be interesting, been years though...


Steven.

j a wrote:
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
                <http://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 – 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: