[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:08:06 +0000 (GMT)
Allen D
Well this is what I've been trying to get you to say for months!
My response however is to ask how you went about trying to record this 'non
existent' motion. If you simply nail the camera to the Earth and point it along
the axis of rotation, of course you will fail. But ... if you duplicate the
conditions with a clever camera mount, (check with my R & D department) then it
is my belief that you will capture this annual trail.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 5:24:56 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
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:

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.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
Other related posts:
