[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 09:24:56 -0800 (PST)
Paul,
"We cause the camera to move in an orbit in the same manner as the Earth, and
There are stars all about us, and
We open the shutter periodically for a short exposure over a period of a
minimum of a month or three,
Just how is it possible that we would NOT see an annual set of star trails
centred on the ecliptic pole?????"
That is the point!...it should if that motion exist but we do not observe
that, therfore the motion does not exist...!?
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 DIV { MARGIN: 0px } Thank you for that Paul. I think at this
point I will just wait until someone concedes or it cannot be resolved
satisfactorily. Once that happens we will have to move onto the next point.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:08 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Jack L
A reasonable request and an answer just for you.
Each day the Earth rotates once (and a little bit) on its axis. If you look at
the fixed stars, you must see apparent rotation of these stars centred on the
extended axis of rotation, especially if you use a camera on time exposure
fixed to the thing which is rotating. This is of course the the nightly star
trails. And no you won't see those circles if the camera is pointed at the
celestial equator despite all of Allen's protestations that the angle of the
camera axis doesn't matter.
Most people can't see this directly -- quite apart from not having the time
to sit around -- it is likely they would be distracted by all those garden
snails roaring past disturbing the neighbourhood. How much less likely are they
to see something which happens more than 365 times more slowly? Especially with
the distraction of all those snails rocketing past, the stars streaking across
the sky, the grass growing!
But to be practical. The problem is that we are trying to photograph
something moving very slowly while sitting on something that is rotating very
fast. If you want to see it, you have to remove the influence of the fast
motion of the thing you are sitting on and the inconvenient angle of the
attention grabbing rotation. That is covered in several mechanisms I have
illustrated, posted and described and which no one will address.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
In as few words as possible -
If the Earth is revolving about the Sun, and
This revolution is in a plane with the Sun at one focus, and
We position a camera on this plane,
Z axis orthogonal to the plane, X axis tangential to the orbit, Y axis radial
to the Sun, and
We cause the camera to move in an orbit in the same manner as the Earth, and
There are stars all about us, and
We open the shutter periodically for a short exposure over a period of a
minimum of a month or three,
Just how is it possible that we would NOT see an annual set of star trails
centred on the ecliptic pole?????
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I once saw an amazing 30 s of motion picture film showing five years in the
life of a glacier. It flowed like a raging river in massive flood. Had I spent
30 s watching someone fitting the camera to the post for the daily shot, I
would not have seen the glacier moving -- the seals and the penguins would have
simply been too distracting. Besides, who believes something as solid as very
old ice moves? Ridiculous! Preposterous!
And yes -- I could be wrong. Would you care to wager against me?
Paul D
PS As I've said before several times, the existence of annual star trails
does not prove heliocentricity. In my first post on this subject I explained
how this would work in a geocentric model.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 8:58:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
 DIV { MARGIN:0px;} Dear Paul,
Just for my sake, could you please restate your method of detecting the
second movement in as few words as possible. Can you do it like Neville does as
listed separate steps that can be agreed or not agreed? Do consider the
possibility that your explanation could be wrong.
I can assure you that Neville would immediately concede if heliocentrism
could be proved. He has had to do this once before when he wrote a paper
regarding the moon's shadow path across the earth during a solar eclipse. There
was an error in the paper and it was picked up by a Christian scientist. I
personally felt sick about it. But Neville graciously withdrew the paper from
his website and went back to the drawing board so to speak. He is a man with
exceptional integrity and as I said to Regner our belief in a creator is not
dependant upon geocentricity being the truth.
Sorry to be a pain.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:38 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Jack L
This heliocentrist is NOT saying that the second (annual revolution) motion
cannot be detected. I have been describing how it CAN be detected for a year
and a half but unfortunately this seems to be in most everyone's dark cupboard
into which none of you seem to have the courage look.
I've tried to remove the subject from this emotional exclusion zone by
shifting the phenomenon to Mars but that didn't work either. See several short
posts "Translational motion of Mars".
Egocentrism? Spelling error or is there a point here that I am missing?
Paul D
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
