[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 22:46:36 -0000
I think that Allen's argument needs to be addressed, if it already hasn't in
the past.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
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?
Other related posts:
