# [geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 07:20:14 -0800 (PST)
```  Paul,
OK, I will keep this general for you now ..The Mechanics discused here are
quite simple. They are accurately reflected in the diagrams i gave you that are
themselves pretty self explanatory...but lets start back at square one so to
speak.............. Yes, lets keep it general for now.

.......................................
Now -- My understaning of your explination is that they are somehow the
same or are viewed the same..? I'm not too sure exactly what you mean here so
I'll try to explain and hope that you grasp my point. If you followed my short
exchange with JA on how I visualised the process which led me to accept his
thinking as illustrated in his "Drawing1.bmp", you will have seen the two
drawings I sent him in my two posts Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts
(Supplementary) From Paul Deema Tue Nov 6 18:23:19 2007 and (same thread) Wed
Nov 7 11:12:46 2007 which pretty much explain the mechanics of how I visualised
these actions.

Ok i can live with drawing "A".... which shows basically what my "9"
shows..........that you said confused you....?

The first thing to do in solving any problem is to reduce it to its essential
parts, if possible simplifying in the process. If the problem involves two (or
more) components -- treat each component separately. In this exercise, I look
at the daily (this means happens once per 24 h) you call it nightly, phenomenon
and ask "What do we need to do in order to record this event?" Well we all know
the answer to that one -- nail a camera to the Earth, point it at the centre of
rotation -- It does not have to be aimed at the center of roation and i think
this seems to be a key point for you, but it matters not if the camera is
facing in a differnt angle then the roation..Once you see this and the fact
that you incorrectly model the motions,  you should then realise how quickly
your arguments fall appart.  Earth or stars, it matters not -- chock the
shutter open, wait an hour or three, remove the chock, print the picture --
Voila! Star trails.
It gets more difficult to visualise the other part. No it is not. It is the
exact same action, with the exact same stars, only a larger  motion ..What is
difficult to visualise is the fact that we don't see it, when we see the other
for the same reasons, and yet you insist that it exist.......We can't see the
ecliptic plane, or the axis at the centre, or its inclination to the Earth's
axis but we opine that they exist, not physically but as intellectual entities.
in the exact same way that the NCP exist ..none of this would realy have come
into question prior to photographic plates......So we then devise a substitute
for the ecliptic disk, nail the camera to it, point it straight up, chock the
shutter open for a month or three, pull the chock, print the picture and look.
You say there will be no trails about the axis, I say there will. wrong!...you
will most certainly see nightly trails, I have said this over and over.....?
The debate then becomes an exploration of the
actions and the mechanics involved.
I've kept this deliberately general. The object is to agree on the principles
involved, the names of the parts etc. Are you still with me? Please try to
limit discussion to just these few points.
Look at the diagram again. You model things either incompletely or
incorrectly. If you are going to model the system you need and must model all
components of the model not just pick and choose..look again at the diagram i
gave you ..that model is the exact mechanics of the HC/AC earth sun system even
according to MS. That model will produce and demonstrate both motions on one
camera..but the reality will only ever produce the nightly ones..... that is
the rub..

Paul D

---------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win \$10,000 every week.