[geocentrism] Re: last attempt Neville
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:24:51 +1000
Neville forgive me if I am wrong, but do I detect some irritation caused by
the prospect that your major claim that the absence of annual star trails
debunks HC might be unsustainable or even challenged? This would be unbecoming
of the gentleman I expect you to be. You have asked for better from Regner. I
respond to your objections below, including those which are rather nitpicky and
having nothing to do with the mechanics involved. Just as well I said the post
MIGHT be the last.. LOL.
This might be my last attempt at explaining what I see Neville.
There has to be severe limitations to communication having a personal high
aptitude for mechanics (?), yet a lack of concise and correct acceptable to all
terminology in conveying physical actions. The words, technical and otherwise,
are being used here, are they not? I am complaining of my inability to
concisely communicate in the written word what it is that I have seen
mechanically working so that all may see the same. (?), I am unsure what this
was for. I was referring to the fact that any vocational aptitude tests I have
ever taken, both at school and occasionally by my employers over the years have
always reported upon an "exceptionally higher than average" result for
mechanical aptitude like as in cogs gears wheels and pulleys etc., and an
overall IQ better than that expected of University graduates. This latter I
find insulting as I have no evidence to support any such intelligence amongst
most graduates, even the engineers.
Humility demands I do not publish a copy of these IQ reports, and in any
case senility may have dated them.
Even the multitude of diagrams require an expertise in interpreting same,
well shown in the confusion abounding here. Who can interpret x-rays for
example? Well, most people. Ultrasound is a little more difficult, if that's
what you mean. I'm surprised to hear you say that. In the Australian medical
system, individual MD's get their assessments of x-rays and ultrasounds and
blood counts done by specialists at the clinics/laboratories where these are
taken. The diagnosis is referred back with the pictures and blood results. MDs
whilst perhaps ok with fractures and the like, cannot be trusted with
interpretations of soft tissue problems. They do not have the experience
equivalent to those who do nothing else every day. You try it!
Diagrams and graphics require an element of both skill and training. I
don't think so. "A picture paints a thousand words."
A picture paints a thousand words, and tells different stories to different
folks.
But In my 5 year apprenticeship three years of it included Technical Trade
drawing and graphic art including schematic diagrams related to electrical and
electronic trades, as a full subject, and I can tell you it was not the easiest
subject for me. In graphics not everyone can picture an isometric view from
looking at 2D elevations. I could project them in a drawing to produce an
image, but that is not the real dimensional object as visualised in the brain,
is it?
I originally asked everybody to stop the world spinning by a counter
reverse sidereal rotation of the camera. When I suggested that I was sure the
orbital rotation should cause a spin which would result in an annual trail
being observed, without arguing over which axis.
However when Regner showed that a rotating translational movement could
occur without spin, and I subsequently proved this to be a physical mechanical
possibility, (and I challenge anyone to prove such is impossible,) I realised,
that as HC claims this is the case in the HC model, then any static camera
pointed at the northern sky during an orbit of the sun would observe no
rotation induced stars.
And you are wrong, because we are not considering the alignment of the
World's alleged axis, but the undeniable motion of any spot on the World with
respect the the centre of the annual orbit when sampled at 24 mean-solar-hour
intervals.
What ever it is you are considering Neville, this is not the object of my
experiment here. I have called for the spot/location to be the pole. I am not
asking for any sampling. And if my wording was difficult for you due to my
limitations , let me say it a litle differently. I am using the HC system.. It
is their system , and it works according to their rules.. I am complying with
those rules in trying to demonstrate that it is possible to have rotary
translation without spin.. They hang their case on that assertion. You seem to
be denying this? All of the above was a preamble, a setting up, the rest is
the real experiment.
So I then modified my original suggestion. Assess the exact rotational
period of the daily spin of the earth. Call it one Sidereal rev per day. Why
not call it 1 sidereal day, which is its accepted name? (And has been since
about the year dot.)
Yes, if you are concerned with accurate terminology. But I was looking at
this from a hypothetical situation. In any case are you not nitpicking here?
whats in a name.. I am trying hard to indicate the exact revolution spin of an
object..
To avoid any confusing distractions, mount your camera spot on the North
celestial Pole looking up. Angle will not matter because the lenze can be wide
angle. (Philip, you are in no position to criticize Allen about his spelling!)
(Grinning with much mirth and enjoyment ) Please tell me why this comment
was inserted here? Have I criticised Allens spelling somewhere? And what has
spelling got to do with the experiment? AH! "lense" then. OK. I must have
seen an American version somewhere. I mixed the American "lenz" and put in an
"e " from the English "lense" Hardly worth apologising for, but if you
insist. There is always one in the class who keeps interrupting with
trivialities.
I suggest the pole because Allen will argue about the translation of the
equator, not that such a location would make any difference. What?!! OK so if I
wanted to nitpick, the equator may put some stars below the horizon. That is
certainly different. But another North star still in view will suffice for the
experiment. But to avoid just such a problem I insist we have it axially
aligned spot on the pole. Did I miss something else here.
This camera will be rotating in the reverse direction to that of the earth
one sidereal rev per day.
In this setup you must agree that the stars will appear to remain
stationary for 24 hours and no trails will appear on the plate.
Angry student interjection:-
Wowzers, that is some long-winded way to state the obvious.
Now imagine if you will that this entire scenario world and all was
INSTANTLY translated 2AU across space 180 degrees of orbit away in a flash
with the exact same orientation. This does happen.
Comedian in the class interjects:-
Does it? Have you been watching Star Trek again? :-)
Will you agree that the view of the stars, apart from some indiscernable
parallax, will be unchanged. Agreed.
In fact if you flashed around the entire orbit maintaining the same
orientation, the view will be unchanged. Agreed.
Well that is what HC claims happens during a year of translation. And this
is why there is no star trails observed. Oh dear. Have you not just been
talking about 'instantly' moving the World around its alleged orbit? What do
you think happens with any off-axis point on the World in the actual HC model?
Here, points on the World are actually moving, rather than being frozen in time
as you suggest.
Ah I can see your problem with my diction. The instant translation was put
to demonstrate that translation can be made without spin. If it can be done in
a second, then it can be done in any time, even a year, simply because the
stars never move from their positions ever. Why do you insist on an off axis
point of the world? If you accept and agreed that nothing changes when the pole
is moved 2AU , how would moving to a different latitude make any difference?
A camera on the pole will just spin on its axis. A camera on the lower
latitude will rotate with the spin of the world , and also if fixed , make one
spin on itself per revolution. This cannot be denied.
By mechanically reverse rotating the camera this will neutralise the spin,
and present stationary stars identically in either location, the pole or some
other latitude.
I do indeed suggest that if you applied this whole experiment to a camera
on some northern latitude , and use any northern star for observation, the
stars location would remain unchanged on the plate over the whole day, and
that such location would remain unchanged during translation to any spot on the
orbit, over a second or over a year.
Philip Madsen.
Back to GC. The world is not spinning . The stars rotate around the NCP.
The world is not orbiting. The stars make no annual trails. IF you did
translate the world by magic to a spot 2 AU away, you would see the exact same
image of the stars rotating around the NCP. Not a smell of a difference would
you see. You need to insert the phenomenal stellar distances into the GC model
before you can say this (I, for one, do not accept such distances, but some
geocentrists do), but your main confusion here lies in the fact that rotation
about the ecliptic polar axis does not occur in geocentrism, because in this
model the Sun orbits the World. Hence, geocentrists do not expect to see this
secondary rotation effect because there is no secondary rotation in the model.
The fact that no such rotation is observed (which I believe we are all agreed
upon) does not make the two models equivalent, but rather points to the
correctness of one model (GC) and the incorrectness of the other (HC).
Neville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.33/1132 - Release Date: 15/11/2007
9:34 AM
Other related posts:
