Dear Dad,
we could seal this one way or the other and close the discussion by
writing a program? Maybe entirely mathematical, to produce a graph or
something?
Steven.
Allen Daves wrote:
I took a break this week end and
this is the first time i got on since friday. I have to say I’m
suprised by this but I respect your decision Neville. I will not
concede however for two basic reasons.
1.Regner's/ these argumental
proofs are made w.r.t. a camera sweeping out of it place (Green
arrow/line) when facing the ecliptic axis. My argument does not
have anything to do with the camera facing the ecliptic axis. It is
looking at the celestial axis all year every day..it canont change its
oreintaion nor can it sweep anywhere!? The cameras orientation can
never changes wrt any axis,( it could not
follow the green arrow, ever ) for it is always parallel to the
celestial axis. (all day all year) That would never change
year around. at midnight parallel to the celestial axis is by the
defintion we all agreed to a rotation. The point i argue on is that
simply looking at the celestial axis does not/ cannot make the rotation
& parallax of the actual ecliptic axis or its effects disappear.
This is the point of the diagrams. It shows that and as of yet no one
as addressed any error with it? Not only does that diagram it self make
& prove the point. But Regner even agreed to the fundamental
meaning of that diagram. If simply looking at the celestial axis does
not make the rotational effect around the ecliptic disappear then what
is the argument? If it does how dose it do that without violating the
previous axioms to which all agreed to !? The fact that the nightly
would be manifested in the annual was and is not in question. Nor does
it automatically follow that there is no other motion to be observed
for the reasons i gave ( & example radial sander v circular)
2. Secondly, Actual experiments
not just a the lack of logic from its distracters will show all of my
arguments valid, including the basic conclusion. A camera using the
real Polaris and stars rotated and translated the way we have been
discussing will show the difference between the motions……even in
translation with the conditions we have all discussed and even agreed
to.
Untill some one acctualy address the arguments that I put
forward i will not conceed. If someone has then please outline it copy
and past the parts of Regners post that i missed for me cause i dont
see it at all?
Dear All,
I respected Regner's request not to immediately respond to his last
posting, but instead have been giving this whole matter very careful
consideration.
There is now no doubt in my mind that the 24-hour images about the
ecliptic polar axis are always going to be snapshots of the diurnal
rotation in the heliocentric model and I concede, therefore, that the
celestial poles argument does not disprove the heliocentric model.
Steven and my web site will be amended in the near future, God willing,
to reflect this retraction.
I would just like to thank you all for some excellent debating and for
the many illustrations that several of you have provided. I hope that
none of you feel that your efforts were either wasted or unappreciated.
This topic will not be closed yet, since Allen has not had a chance to
fully digest Regner's post. If he concedes, as I have, then we will
close it off, otherwise he will now have one more to convince!
I hope that our little forum family is strengthened by this discussion
and that each one of us has learnt something from it, I know that I
have. If, however, anyone feels disappointed, then I apologise to you
for building your hopes up.
Best wishes,
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
|