PURPLE Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen D Excellent response -- I can deal with every statement and know with considerable confidence that I understand what you are saying. I'll choose this colour. (Well I like it -- it's pretty!) Actually, I don't know what colour you see. It's repeatable here on Yahoo but if I compose off line with Wordpad, it's closer to red. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, 9 November, 2007 3:20:14 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale. 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. comments to you in blue ....................................... 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".... For clarity sake -- we are talking about my SevenViews.png? NO, you said..."as illustrated in his(ja's ) "Drawing1.bmp", although , i dont know why i refered to it as "a"..? In any case i was responding to your comment and that was the and only drawing under consideration....beside, use the drawings i gave you instead of yours....why?...because.. your's do not demonstrate the poles argument and mine do. I thought you were trying to show how the poles argument is in error my diagrams demonstrate the argument that you are trying to debunk and yours do not. They only demonstrate how you see things......which shows basically what my "9" shows..........that you said confused you....? Yes -- but let's not be distracted. Keep moving ahead while progress is in the offing. 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. The reason this is so long coming, is that I have reconsidered this matter and you are correct. And so long as the NCP is somewhere into the frame then circles will form around it regardless of whether the stars or the Earth rotate. (Drawing AxisOfRotate.png attached). Again the nightly and annual are the exact same type of motion(rotation)...to veiw the nightly you do not need to look or have the NCP anywhere, in the frame. Therfore the same will hold true for the NEP I may have to retract certain parts of SevenViews.png and the description. Later. Onward. 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.......I do not concede this point yet as there is a fundamental difference. no differenece same action (rotaion about an axis) same stars, same camera... concede?..its a indisputiable fact, if you wish to deny that, you can but that will allways be the reason you cant fully appreciate the problem I realised my error concerning the necessity of changing my position above when I realised that in my visualisation, I had simply rotated the camera whereas what is happening is that the camera complete with its offset is being rotated -- that is -- the camera is being rotated but so is the offset. YES The pic attached may help. i saw the pic...no, it does not help your case as it is still inaccurate of what is taking place. the reason you are having sucha hard time visualising this is becuse you realy belive there is some fundimental difference between the annual and nightly roations other then size and the period of the rotaion. However, in the case of rotation about the NEP (or SCP), the camera as I have placed it need have no offset and so long as it rotates about the NEP rather than the NCP, the centre of rotation is in the frame For "simplicity" sake i draw the camera facing the NEP. That is the eaisy way of demontrating what you would see. However, as you seem to think that it must face the NEP or keep it within the frame, this only underlines some other false assumption you have about those two motions to begin with..........As soon as i can figure out what you think the difference is between the two rotaions i might be able to help you. But in any case, it is that false assumtion that they are fundimentaly differnt and or that you must have the axis in the frame. What ever it is that causes you to think tha,t is also what is preventing you from understanding exactly what is going on in the real thing... -- just as for the daily example -- and circles around this pole -- the NEP -- will be evident. 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...I think you are probably correct...That is importaint, if you do not understand this, then this to would also prevent you from seeing the "big picture" as it realy is...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. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I'll call a halt here Allen -- it's 06h00 and I really should sleep. Please, a short note if you like -- to accept (or deny) tonight's efforts -- but nothing new. Hint -- you still haven't answered those two questions! I don?t know which other two questions you are referring to. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 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. Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV. --------------------------------- National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.