[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:46:32 -0000
Steven! This e-mail has quite deafened me!
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:36 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Wow, I just realized, that Russian CAD program can do the most amazing proof
in the form of a video that will finish this once and for all! I will check it
out later. It has a "camera" function, as well as paths etcetera...
Steven.
Steven Jones wrote:
Nice reply, here is Allan's latest drawing with a bit of Gaussian-blur
followed by unsharp-masking to create an "anti-aliased" effect too.
Allen Daves wrote:
Ja,
here is one more diagram for you to be used with the previous one... I
sent two diagrams one in real color and the other I inversed the colors as per
steven......
1. Your projection image is mechanically wrong. The angles diverge not
merge.......my model is mechanical correct and uses appropriate scaling..
2. your assuming that every star in the sky will merge with every other
star and all the other stars in the sky when viewed at 23.44 o ..wow .......wow
again..what an amazing coincidence!......_*That does not work!!!*_ ..The
distrobution of the night sky is not isotropic.
3.The exposures are not limited to midnight nor are they even limited to
the same time every night almost any exposure on almost any interval at night
over the corse of a year would cause the camera to rotate through all 360
degrees of the solar axis of rotation, even if it were just in pin drops &
traces that deviate from the nightlyons at differnt angles and must demonstrate
the secondary motion around the larger secondary axis for the same reasons that
the nightly axis is demonstrated observably............It still shows
divergence, even if it were mechanical correct, If this were a real photo graph
of all the stars taken at various intervals the camera would still rotate
around the solar axis of rotation /(regardless of what time of night the
exposures were taken)/ and thus it would be demonstrated as a big blur ..my
point not yours.....
4. The experiment in question works (mine) ...You still don't have a
explanation for why the experiment which is smaller works but the earth's
motions , nightly as well as annual do not? You have not even addressed the
experiment which was after all the challenge to begin with...
I afraid your explanation is just a bunch of confused bits and pieces
about things you are assuming, which are false.....now disprove mine and you
could then and only then prove yours... mine proves that the motion does not
exist.....yours dose not even address mine except in imagination.....go do the
experiment then tell me it is wrong and explain why, but you have not nor can
Regner or anyone else for that matter....all your doing is giving me a bunch of
assumptions that are clearly wrong...
*/j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>/* 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:
