# [geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.

• From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:45:02 -0800 (PST)

```Paul,
Im limiting my comments to these for now......because you are so mixed up
on so many things i cant keep up you converge angle that should be diverging
and make appeals to reason "a" for why we can't see the secondary motion. when
i show you that is irrelevant then you appeal to reason "b" when i show you how
"b" is irrelevant you go back to "a" or some reason "c' that is only true if
"a" were correct.???????..............i can't wait to see Regners contortion....

1.You say that two cameras are needed ...me:a camera in rotation about 2 axis
you:NOT POSSIBLE -- YOU'D NEED TWO CAMERAS ..that is wrong..not only is it
wrong, but demonstratably wrong!!!   what in the world makes you think you
would need two cameras or that the cameras need to be pointed along the axis in
question?......any of the reason you have or could give would also negate our
ability to see photos of nightlly star trails for any camera that was not
pointed at the nightly axis...!?

The number of Cameras is irrelevant only one is needed...you then go on and
contridict everything you just stated there with...........

me:offset from each other will be most discernable! you: AGAIN -- I KNOW
THAT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I DO NOT. well if you agree
that one camera in rotation about two differnt axis is discernable from the
same camera rotating on only one of thoes axis........ then what is  your
argument !?....why cant we see the second roation on the camera on the earth
that is in the exact same rotaion...........only one camera is needed!?

2. I dont see how or what your diagram is showing us star trails or why we
cant see them?

3. The experiment is attached here once more.... in two diagrams... Note
unlike yours it uses the exact same angles as reality and will produce the
secondary motion on both axis even using the real polaris and stars for
distance.......The only differnce is the size of the roations ..However, as you
keep "pounding" the earths orbital rotation diameter ( distance) will not
change anything!...Thus that issue is moot in this model..particulary since
even with that "handicap" (so much smaller then the real thing)  it clearly
shows the secondary motion......when the earth itself does not!!!

4. Me: no not similar trails but entirely different sizes for each star due
to the different distance to the axis..stars cannot have the same distance from
two axis offset by 23.44o simultaneously ..They would have to in order to
explain why you cannot see them both..or you would have to explian how  the
nightly (smaller) rotation about the NCP has dominance over the NEP such that
it is even possible to obscure that rotation if it existed, when you cannot
reproduce such a obserdity with a replica model of the earth, sun
&axis.....you:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS. THE DAILY SET OF TRAILS IS
CENTRED ON THE NCP WITH THE RADIUS OF EACH CIRCULAR ARC DEPENDANT UPON THE
ANGULAR SEPARATION OF THAT STAR FROM THE GEOGRAPHICAL POLAR AXIS.NO! NO! NO!
There is more then one axis each with its own rate of  real rotation....... not
just two rotations on the same axis!  You don't seem to grasp the basic
mechanic of the whole thing.. or even worse the differnece between those
two.......THE ANNUAL SET OF TRAILS IS CENTRED ON THE NEP WITH THE RADIUS OF
EACH ARC DEPENDANT UPON THE ANGULAR SEPARATION OF THAT STAR FROM THE ECLIPTIC
POLAR AXIS. DEPENDING UPON THE WIDTH FIELD OF VIEW, MANY STARS MAY MAKE TRAILS
IN EACH PHOTO RECORD

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
I'm asking these questions because I can't read half the text in the
illustrations plus what I can is not clear.
You keep referring to an experiment. I don't know what that experiment is.
Most of what you have written here assumes that I am ignorant of many things
of which I am not.
I can't understand what you are saying in most of this post.
I know what actions produce star trails.
I have shown you how to produce an annual star trail which you either didn't
grasp or simply rejected.
You keep referring to a distance from the axis of rotation. This is a
meaningless expression. Angular separation (of a star from the axis of
rotation) is an accurate expression.
Other problems.
You don't like my continued use of illustrations for some reason but I use
them because you don't seem to understand my questions. I'll try again -- there
is a picture attached -- ThePlank.png. I don't want a long rambling explanation
-- sentences like those above would be nice. Why won't both daily and annual
star trails be be produced from this setup?
I still don't perceive an answer to the question "How have annual star trails
been searched for and found to be not present?
I've inserted some comments below in this colour. You need not respond to
everything below -- I've put them there to indicate the level of my confusion
Paul D
PS I hope this illustration is clear but I'll make a couple of points. I know
it is impractical in reality -- it is only for explanatory purposes. The Earth
is doing its thing rotating once per sidereal day and the camera nailed to the
planet remains firmly fixed on Earth's axis of rotation. It will record one
complete circular trail in one sidereal day. The Earth is pulling a plank
around the Earth's orbit to which is nailed a camera firmly oriented along the
Ecliptic Disk Axis. It will record one complete circular trail in 365.25 mean
solar days.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 8 November, 2007 5:20:56 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
Since JA is away for a bit, may I attempt to entertain you in the interim?
I looked back over that collection of drawings you sent me ... From Allen
Daves Tue Nov  6 19:36:53 2007. I couldn't help concluding after a quick scan
that you seem to be describing things the way I have been describing them for
some time and the way JA has been describing them recently. Realy ..i got the
impressin that you were bouncing between arguments never mind they are mutualy
exclusive.....so i address them all ...... This is that, if heliocentricity is
the reality, then star trails around the NCP (as observed -- no argument here)
will be evident, Yes no matter what time of year or how long the exposures are
taken as it will be a photo graph of the same thing, all year long....... GOOD
- WE AGREE as will similar trails (different stars but still -- big argument)
around the NEP,   no not similar trails but entirely different sizes for each
star due to the different distance to the axis..stars cannot have the same
distance from two axis offset by 23.44o
simultaneously ..They would have to in order to explain why you cannot see
them both..or you would have to explian how  the nightly (smaller) rotation
about the NCP has dominance over the NEP such that it is even possible to
obscure that rotation if it existed, when you cannot reproduce such a obserdity
with a replica model of the earth, sun &axis..... I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF
THIS. THE DAILY SET OF TRAILS IS CENTRED ON THE NCP WITH THE RADIUS OF EACH
CIRCULAR ARC DEPENDANT UPON THE ANGULAR SEPARATION OF THAT STAR FROM THE
GEOGRAPHICAL POLAR AXIS. THE ANNUAL SET OF TRAILS IS CENTRED ON THE NEP WITH
THE RADIUS OF EACH ARC DEPENDANT UPON THE ANGULAR SEPARATION OF THAT STAR FROM
THE ECLIPTIC POLAR AXIS. DEPENDING UPON THE WIDTH FIELD OF VIEW, MANY STARS MAY
MAKE TRAILS IN EACH PHOTO RECORD.
but that because the latter is not observed, then heliocentricity is shown to
be false. Is this the nub of the argument?
You see, some little time in the past, when I pointed out to you that the
distance to these stars was such that no observer baseline possible could have
any non trivial effect on the size and shape of these trails but you stated
that even the latitude from which they were observed would have a noticeable
effect. You haven't rescinded this statement but as I said, the impression I
gained was that you are now basically wearing the clothes I laid out for you.
You do see my predicament?   I see your predicament, the problem is that you do
not see your own predicament.... I stated that other MS scientist have made
that statement as well...I also said that regardless of that issue...lets
assume that is correct.... " the stars are too far away to affect the
baseline."........for the sake of argument.... ..who cares!.....it is the
distance ANGULAR SEPARATION of the star from the rotational axis not the
distance to the star!!!!..I WHICH DETERMINES THE DIAMETER OF THE STAR TRAILS?
WHERE WOULD YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I MIGHT THINK OTHERWISE? If the stars are
too far away then scale is irrelevant for the diagrams.......If the stars are
not too far away then the baseline would have an effect. Then there would be a
whole another component of observable motion. In either case either one of
those is a problem of HC that make it untenable...Those issues, which ever one
you subscribe to, are not problems for me. Iâ??m simply showing you where the
fault WHAT FAULT? lies no matter which side of that fence you want to sit on in
this annual star trail issue.....

Now if the nub of the argument in fact is as stated above -- that these
trails have not been detected -- I have no knowledge of how you have attempted
to detect them.   Do the experiment..REFERRED TO ABOVE you can produce star
trails even rotating a camera around a 12' disk..but your position is yes that
is true..yes you can see rotation on a 6000 mile disk DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS
MEANS ... but we cannot observe rotation on a 150million km disk...!?? OR THIS!
What is so hard to understand the diagrams label it for you and show you how to
construct a model of the earth sun axis of rotation with a camera..?
It may be buried in the verbiage, but I can't see it. My impression is that
you believe that the NEP centred star trails will be visible in photos of the
NCP centred star trails taken on a single occasion but it is not clear. Is this
so?
This post contains two questions.   I have no idea what you mean by a "single
occasion"  LIKE "AT MIDNIGHT" OR "TOMORROW AT NOON" -- A ONE OFF DEAL .......
the diagrams are pretty self explanatory.....try asking me a question about the
diagrams ......This just is there is two axis of rotation those axis diverge
not converge. WHERE WOULD YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I MIGHT THINK OTHERWISE? what
produces a star trail is the distance ANGULAR SEPARATION of the star from the
axis not the distance to the star WHERE WOULD YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I MIGHT
THINK THIS?...all stars cannot be the same distance from both axis
simultaneously.. WHERE WOULD YOU GET THE IDEA THAT I MIGHT THINK THIS?.If the
rotation exist there must be two different sets for each star which in fact
would just create a big blur.. SOMEHOW I DOUBT THAT but do the experiment even
a casual attempt will demonstrate that a camera in rotation about 2 axis NOT
POSSIBLE -- YOU'D NEED TWO CAMERAS offset from each other will
be most discernable! AGAIN -- I KNOW THAT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE YOU GET THE
IDEA THAT I DO NOT.

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