[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 16:44:32 +1000
I have tried very hard to comprehend what we were all attempting to do. Yes in
the beginning I thought we had something.. ..so I will ask you to answer two
simple questions.
1. If we take a picture of polaris from the same position and time on earth
and with the same angle of observation , once in January, and again 6 months
later. How will those pictures differ from each other ?
2. If we take the pictures again at the same times with a different angle of
observation, aimed at the ecliptic if you wish, How will those differ from each
other?
I maintain that both pictures in exercise 1 will be identical except that the
star will show up on a different spot of the daily trail you have for reference
taken under the same conditions.
Further that both pictures in exercise 2 though different from those in
exercise 1., will be identical, except the star also will be on different spots
of the daily trail you have kept for reference taken also under the same
conditions.
The two different trails will not be the same size due to the camera angle
change. But this has nothing to do with the position from which the pics are
taken, ie 2 AU apart. Which I think makes no difference .
The difference I think we are trying to detect for HC , is whether the earth
rotates in one solar day or in one sidereal day. Whats that? How many sidereal
days are there in a 365 solar day year?
Am I confused or on a star trek er trail.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
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 – Check out spam free email with many cool features!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 4/11/2007
11:05 AM
Other related posts:
