[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

Don't worry - I'm not conceding. No reason to. But, as Bernard Brauer
mentioned, I do have a full time job - and a family to take care of too
- I have just been, and still am, very busy.
  The way you guys write, I have no chance of keeping up and reading
everything, much less replying to every relevant posting. So I'm afraid
I won't even attempt to do either - Please don't take that personal in any way.
I hope I can get something together about the star-trails, during tomorrow.

    Kind Regards

       Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> philip madsen wrote:
> 
>   
>   
>   
>   Geocentrism and he is going up against experts,
>   ?
> 
> Smile, it's true, this forum is a leading collaboration of quite
> literally the the best experts in the field of geocentrism in the
> World! Be proud of the team no matter how much of a player you consider
> yourself, your actually more knowledgeable on the subject than many
> secular-institutionalized folks!
> 
> 
> 
> Steven.
> 
> 
> 
>   
>     -----
> Original Message ----- 
>     From:
>     Bernie Brauer 
>     To:
>     geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>     Sent:
> Thursday, November 08, 2007 6:29 AM
>     Subject:
> [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
>     
> 
>     
>     Steven,
>      
>     He has a full time job. Since this is probably his first time
> seriously looking at Geocentrism and he is going up against experts, it
> will probably take a while to compose a comprehensive response to the
> many questions and arguments posed to him.
>      
>     Bernie 
> 
>     
> 
>     Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>     Sorry
> to disappoint, I don't think the CAD program will do the job :-( 
> 
> But we're working on something else...
> 
>       
> 
> I have to say if Dr. Regner has really gone and left us it wasn't very 
> 
> nice of him not to give us some form of notice.
> 
>       
> 
> Best Wishes,
> 
>       
> 
> Steven.
> 
>       
> 
> Allen Daves wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > *in blue again*
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > */j a /* wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > OK, I'm glad you and Dr. Jones have answered basically the
> 
> > same. So #1 is the statement. I still think ya'll are
> 
> > missing the problem of the camera changing it's angle
> 
> > while recording, it is the fact that a camera left alone
> 
> > that does not change its angle is the reason why the proof
> 
> > works!..If the camera does not change angle then there
> 
> > will be no annual trail. If the rotation realy exist then
> 
> > the camera will change and thus produce a star trail by
> 
> > your own admission... but let me try something else. Is
> 
> > this proof in GWW? What do the authors think of this proof?
> 
> >
> 
> > */Allen Daves /* wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > #2 is false i read it as a double negitve...
> 
> >
> 
> > */Neville Jones /* wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > JA,
> 
> >
> 
> > I will answer in green ...
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> 
> > *From:* ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> > *Sent:* Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:55:55 -0800 (PST)
> 
> >
> 
> > Dr. Jones, A few responces in red. I am really
> 
> > interested to hear Your and Allens Yea or nay
> 
> > to 5 statements I've written far below.
> 
> > 
> 
> > JA...
> 
> >
> 
> > */Neville Jones /* wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> > JA,
> 
> >
> 
> > Your second paragraph is quite a mixture
> 
> > of ideas and models, but your essential
> 
> > argument, if I understand you correctly,
> 
> > is this: since the nightly rotation always
> 
> > produces the same set of star trails, then
> 
> > it is not possible for these to draw out
> 
> > another circle, because they are simply
> 
> > always in the same place.
> 
> >
> 
> > This is a subtle argument and I had to
> 
> > pray for guidance before I considered it.
> 
> >
> 
> > My response is the following:
> 
> >
> 
> > You and I take a 35-mm SLR camera each,
> 
> > mount them on tripods and place them in
> 
> > our back gardens. One in your garden,
> 
> > wherever it is, and one in mine, such that
> 
> > I cannot see your camera and you cannot
> 
> > see mine.
> 
> >
> 
> > In the heliocentric system, the cameras
> 
> > move. In the geocentric system, the stars
> 
> > move. Forget any motion of the World for now.
> 
> >
> 
> > Now, unbeknown to me, you point your
> 
> > camera at a star and, unbeknown to you, I
> 
> > point mine at a star (it does not have to
> 
> > be a different star, but the chances are
> 
> > that it will be).
> 
> >
> 
> > I rotate my camera through 360 degrees
> 
> > about an axis whilst the shutter is open
> 
> > for one minute. I will obtain circular
> 
> > stars trails on the emulsion.
> 
> >
> 
> > You rotate your camera through 360 degrees
> 
> > about a different axis whilst the shutter
> 
> > is open for two minutes. you will obtain
> 
> > circular trails on your emulsion.
> 
> >
> 
> > Does the rotation of my camera affect in
> 
> > any way the image that you have obtained
> 
> > on your camera? Does the rotation of your
> 
> > camera affect in any way the image that I
> 
> > have obtained on my camera? The answer to
> 
> > both questions is 'no'. I must agree, but
> 
> > I would point out that if your camera is
> 
> > pointed to a different direction in the
> 
> > sky then mine, then we would record
> 
> > different star trails. And combining our
> 
> > pictures would produce no useful
> 
> > knowledge. True.
> 
> >
> 
> > These rotations are isolated. The stars
> 
> > are fixed in this system, so as long as
> 
> > the two components remain isolated there
> 
> > is no way that the movement of one camera
> 
> > affects what is recorded by the other.
> 
> >
> 
> > We now let the World do the rotating while
> 
> > our cameras are in some (different) way
> 
> > fixed to it.
> 
> >
> 
> > So, instead of my rotating my camera, I
> 
> > fix the tripod to the ground and align it
> 
> > such that the optical axis of the camera
> 
> > is parallel to the celestial polar axis. I
> 
> > leave the shutter open for 6 hours, whilst
> 
> > the World allegedly rotates about its axis.
> 
> >
> 
> > The question is exactly the same: Does the
> 
> > image I am obtaining in any way affect the
> 
> > image that you are obtaining? The answer
> 
> > again is 'no'. Remember that this is the
> 
> > heliocentric system where the stars are
> 
> > fixed. I still agree, but I would point
> 
> > out that if I fix my camera exactly as you
> 
> > descibe yours, then we would record the
> 
> > same thing, maybe not the same portion of
> 
> > any particular star trail, but if
> 
> > overlayed they would match up.. True.
> 
> >
> 
> > Night after night, the answer is the same.
> 
> > The camera motions are isolated.
> 
> >
> 
> > But the same must be true in reverse, with
> 
> > you aligning the optical axis of your
> 
> > camera with the ecliptic polar axis and
> 
> > allowing the camera to rotate through 360
> 
> > degrees over 12 months as the World
> 
> > allegedly trundles around its orbit of the
> 
> > Sun. This will in no way affect what I see
> 
> > in the heliocentric system, but you will
> 
> > still have produced the star trails about
> 
> > the ecliptic pole if heliocentrism is correct.
> 
> >
> 
> > Locking the camera onto the ecliptic pole
> 
> > is easy, we lock them on stars all the
> 
> > time, and the ecliptic pole is just like a
> 
> > star position. (is the ecliptic the same
> 
> > as the Annual axis?) if I did this, I
> 
> > would record an annual trail. Locking the
> 
> > camera axis to the annual axis will
> 
> > produce the annual trail. Thats why we get
> 
> > a nightly trail from a stationary camera
> 
> > but cannot get an annual trail from a
> 
> > stationary camera. True. Also, if I lock
> 
> > my camera axis to any imaginary axis, I
> 
> > can produce annual star trails for that
> 
> > axis. Not true, because now you have
> 
> > nothing, real or imaginary, that is going
> 
> > to be rotating the camera. You are
> 
> > confusing alignment with rotation.
> 
> >
> 
> > In talking to you and Allen. It has
> 
> > occurred to me that maybe I've
> 
> > misunderstood a particular point. Let me
> 
> > spell out a few things that you each can
> 
> > simply answer as true or not true. This
> 
> > should help me, or maybe help me help you,
> 
> > or help me help you help me figure out
> 
> > what we are missing in what the other is
> 
> > saying. ;-)
> 
> > 
> 
> > Pleae respond true or not true to the
> 
> > following:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 1) The demonstration of the "dual axis
> 
> > proof" is that the Nightly circle made by
> 
> > polaris is exactly the same every day of
> 
> > the year and in the exact same spot, when
> 
> > recorded by a camera that is stationary
> 
> > with respect to the ground it is affixed
> 
> > too. True.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 2) The demonstration of the "dual axis
> 
> > proof" is that the Annual circle made by
> 
> > polaris is not evident, when recorded by a
> 
> > camera that is stationary with respect to
> 
> > the ground it is affixed too, when
> 
> > pictures are taken at 24 hours intervals.
> 
> > Not true. The camera has to be moving in
> 
> > this instance with respect to the ground,
> 
> > but the orientation of the camera is
> 
> > always such that the photographic film
> 
> > always has its bottom edge, say, nearest
> 
> > to the World's geographical polar axis.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 3) The demonstration of the "dual axis
> 
> > proof" is that the Annual circle made by
> 
> > polaris is not evident, when recorded by a
> 
> > camera that is stationary with respect to
> 
> > the ground it is affixed too, when
> 
> > pictures are taken at 23 hour 56
> 
> > minute intervals. Not true.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 4) The demonstration of the "dual axis
> 
> > proof" is that the Annual circle made by
> 
> > polaris is not evident, when recorded by a
> 
> > camera that is rotated to stay parrallel
> 
> > with the annual axis, when pictures are
> 
> > taken at 24 hours intervals. Not entirely
> 
> > true, because the camera is simply
> 
> > aligned, not rotated. You must not lose
> 
> > sight of the fact that the rotation of the
> 
> > camera must always be caused by the
> 
> > World's alleged motion.
> 
> > 
> 
> > 5) The demonstration of the "dual axis
> 
> > proof" is that the Annual circle made by
> 
> > polaris is not evident, when recorded by a
> 
> > camera that is rotated to stay parrallel
> 
> > with the annual axis, when pictures are
> 
> > taken at 23 hour 56 minute intervals. Not
> 
> > true.
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > Neville
> 
> >
> 
> > www.GeocentricUniverse.com
> 
> > 
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > __________________________________________________
> 
> > 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 
>      
>      No virus found in this incoming message.
> 
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> 
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.24/1115 - Release Date:
> 7/11/2007 9:21 AM
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Other related posts: