[geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:05:24 -0800 (PST)
NO, Philip if indeed as you say its because of the magnitude of scale is so
great then the scale of the drawings is irrelevant as compared to the earth
both are too far away...The nightly cannot be identical to the annual..They
take place in two different directions in the sky...Remember, it is the
distance of the star from the axis of rotation that produces any star
trails........ NOT ..........the scale of the observer to the stars. Since the
axis face in different directions the stars cannot all have the same distance
from both axis simultaneously!!! If the scale is not irrelevant you would
disprove your own conjecture!......You guys keep arguing, going around in
circles with yourself?s and don?t realize it... However, if you are so
concerned about scale do the experiment i showed you. You will most certainly
produce nightly as well as annual star trails using real distances that are
even smaller then the ones claimed at for the scale of the earth......
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: @font-face { font-family:
Cambria Math; } @font-face { font-family: Calibri; } @font-face {
font-family: Tahoma; } @page Section1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in
1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; } P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt;
FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE: 12pt;
MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif" } DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"
} A:link { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
} SPAN.MsoHyperlink { COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline;
mso-style-priority: 99 } A:visited { COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION:
underline; mso-style-priority: 99 } SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { COLOR:
purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99 }
P.MsoListParagraph { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; FONT-FAMILY:
"Times New
Roman","serif"; mso-style-priority: 34 } LI.MsoListParagraph { FONT-SIZE:
12pt; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif";
mso-style-priority: 34 } DIV.MsoListParagraph { FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN:
0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman","serif"; mso-style-priority:
34 } SPAN.EmailStyle18 { COLOR: #1f497d; FONT-FAMILY:
"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: personal-reply } .MsoChpDefault {
mso-style-type: export-only } DIV.Section1 { page: Section1 } OL {
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } UL { MARGIN-BOTTOM: 0in } G'day again.
This ongoing attempt to diagramatically show how we should prove HC to be
false by the absence of any annual star trails has failed to give me any
closure. Something persists to illude me. Nothing amongst the diagrams was able
to picture any actuality. Last night I realised why. Its the magnitude of
scale. So I decided to put it all to scale, to make the picture diagram correct
by aproximation.
I began with the solar orbit.. at 18light minutes across or 2AU.
I decided to make a dot 0.5mm = 2AU and put it at the bottom of the page,
and call this the earth sun orbit. run a vertical line up to the top of the
page and call this the ecliptic axis. From the same dot I run a line at 23
degrees to the left all the way to the top. I made this line 0.5mm thick.
Actually it should be 2 lines 0.5 mmm apart with a multiplicity of lines in
between, but you get the idea. This is the celestial axis.
This line reprsents the celestial axis of the earth from every point in its
orbit around the sun. A base line of 0.5mm.
Next I needed to place polaris on the diagram. 430 light years away. HMMMMM !
OK
430 x 365 x 24 x 60 minutes divided by 18 x 1000 = meters.
Thats 12, 566m . or
12.6 kilometers..
I need a page 12.6 km high.. before I can draw in polaris.. but more
Polaris is just 42 minutes, less than three quarters of a degree off the
celestial axis. or 22+ degrees off the ecliptic. So my page is going to have
to be an awful number of kilometers wide as well.
Thats the magnitude of scale we are dealing with. And it becomes obvious,
that the daily rotation of the planet and the annual rotataion of the orbit
become so insignificant, to be almost identical , relative to the stars if they
are in fact all fixed. Look at the drawing attached.
Another point of note. A question raised. And this fits with Nevilles
analysis in disputing alleged distances. Lets apply the magnitude of scale
again.
Polaris is visible to the most simple telescope. Almost the naked eye.
This is equivalent to picking out and seeing a pin prick light source given
the scale above, thousands of times SMALLER than 0.5 mm, at a distance of 12
km.
Even with the best binoculars and solar luminousity, could that be done.
Philip.
Other related posts:
