[geocentrism] Re: About time.
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
I am still working on that somemthing I mentioned to Dr. Jones plus I am
getting ready to go into my Boook of Daniel Class and don't have a lot of time
right now but SEE ATTACHED Drawing the distances to the stars are irrelevant.
The size/length of the star trail itself is due to the "motion" of the observer
and has absolutly nothing to do with the distance to a givnen star or the
"velocity" of the star itself. The distance could only affect the Radius of the
trail not the length of it.
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Phillip,
I agree with all you say. The point of my postings, is that the ideas being
proposed, depend on the universe being small. Since we cannot demonstrate that
the universe is small, the proofs don't prove anything.
Allen,
Your point, as I understand it, is that since the earth moves 6000 miles
through space while spinning, we should see a distortion in the arc of a star.
My point is, that you are comparing the observation of an object 5000 miles
away while you spin and move your center of rotation less than one foot in any
direction. You can't see that small of a change.
JA
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I guess what everybody is still failing to see, is that irrespective of the
size of the universe, all ,, hear me ,, ALL of the gyrations of the earth
will provide the exact same OBSERVATIONS to an earthman whether it is the
world that is doing the moving, or if the world is STILL and the universe is
doing the moving.
What we observe wiill be exactly the same. If you can see this in relation to
the simple movement of the sun, (or an earth) then why is it so difficult to
comprehend for the rest of the galaxy, polar stars included.
God aint about making it easy for the proud and arrogant . and as the sinnerI
am, I consider that very fair of Him.
Why should they with no faith be given any favours?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 3:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: About time.
The size of the universe is irrelevant in all these cases.. we don?t have to
know, understand or even agree on the size of the universe to observe circles
due to a ~ 6000 mile displacement from a fixed point on the surface of the
earth to the center of the axis of rotation even within only 3 hours? (This is
irrespective of what is spinning on that axis the earth or the universe.) This
is irrespective of how large the universe is, there is still a measurable
spatial displacement even for that small of a distance in that short of a
time...( there are only two possibilities for these observations one is a
geocentric model the other has the earth moving around the sun as the sun moves
around the Galaxy, however this would involve changing ones perspective
constantly and never coming back to the same point in space this is a big
problem regardless of the size of the universe..). The paper I quoted is in the
NASA ADS data base written by Heliocentist?.and talks a bout a similar pro
blem
based on much larger distances over a much larger time frame, and this problem
of periodicity is not disputed even by the heliocentrist they have put forward
arguments about light scatter and other things that even they themselves are
not fully convinced or satisfied.... but in any case we don?t have to know,
agree or even have a general idea about the size of the universe...this
Periodicity issue is based on observations regardless of the size of the
universe and the paper i cited assumes a universe that is ~ current accepted
size. I am hoping that Neville and Steven will simm these things. Because it is
hard to detail a word picture. If we are ever to make real progress in the
world against these paradigms we are going to have to demonstrate the fallacy
of these lies with the same "vivid digital Technicolor" that they use to spread
them. The celestial poles argument, as well, is irrespective of the size of the
universe and the size of the stars and distance s to those bodi
es as
well.
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: I still have seen no arguement which disproves
heliocentrism as put forth by modern science. As you all might remember my
earlier questioning of Dr. Jones' proof of heliocentrim regaurding the
celestial poles. It still seems to me, that that proof is only valid for a
universe that is much smaller than is claimed. The same large universe model
makes the spacial displacement arguement invalid also, because all these
motions are so small compared the distances between celestial objects. These
motions all fall into the catagory of "too small to be seen" when compared to
the claimed distances between the stars.
Only by first accepting the universe to be small do these arguments work. Since
we want to be able to convince others that the earth is geocentric, and they
most likely believe the large universe model, we shouldn't present them with
circular arguements because it will not convince them. We are basically saying
the earth doesn't move and it is proved because observation of the small
universe confirms it. And anyone we say this to will respond - "the universe is
large, so your proof doesn't prove anything". The best we can show is that it
could be possible, but then they also have to abandon the current notions of
gravity.
How do we first show the universe to be small? Perhaps the spacial displacement
arguement would work given enough time. Like, stellar observations compared
between now and 100's or thousands of years ago? How far back do we have
records of stellar observations?
I had a thought awhile back that because of the galaxy's rotation, that a
distant universe should move in comparison to local stars. I was about to post
the idea when I though about the time claimed to actually make a full
revolution and realized that our supposed velocity (although quite fast to us)
about the galaxy is too small to be able to view the difference even during a
lifetime.
JA
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What I was getting out of this was where you show the observational flaw of a
a-centric frame due to the earth?s supposed motion around the sun??this
periodicity issue would seem to be able to demonstrate the observational flaw
which would be compounded due to the "Solar System" hurling around the "Milky
way galaxy" many many times the speed of the earth?s supposed motion around the
sun and thus a proportional spatial displacement? What do you think?
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dr Jones,
I was organizing some of my data today and ran across a observation by Dr.
James Hanson that I remembered from a while back...... it had to do with
Periodicity.. I quote "..if the earth has all the gyrations and motions that
science claims it has then the return of a point on the earth's surface to the
same place in space would not periodically occur, or at all. After all, that
point along with the whole earth, would have wandered off far removed from
where it had been a day before."...." it was precisely this point that Vera
Rubin's group were horrified to discover"...Rubin V. C. et al 1976 Astronomical
Journal 81: 687-718... I can send you this paper if you like however it is 2.55
MB Gif images from the ADS database.....?. I thought about you and Steven
demonstrating the difference in the observations of the background stars with
respect to a geocentric and a-centric frame of reference? could this
periodicity issue contribute to your model? .. and if so is this some thing t
hat you
and Steven hope to be able to clearly demonstrate in GU 2005?
allen
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dan,
Can you give me your web address, please.
Neville.
Dan <danchap9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Extract from my web site:
...
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Other related posts:
