[geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 10:46:00 +1000
Having said all that below, and a clincher for MS, HC and standard physics, If
a camera were mouinted on a fitting that was suspended and gyroscopically
stabilise to face a nominated co-ordinate, anywhere in space, it would detect ,
(a) the daily rotation of the world, and
(b) also the annular .
the camera would not be needed.
For the finicky.. Two gyros...One on a star and one on the sun.. will make
the calculations simpler, as it conforms to sidereal and solar times.
Two distinct motions will show up, and as we have ample proof of the theory and
operation of gyroscopic guidence systems as motion detectors, The case is
closed.
We will need the aether to rescue us...Not only as a component property of
radiation and gravity, but of mass and inertia as well.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof
Well finally I can begin to feel sane, because Paul has fallen...I do not
mean he was on the pedestal, but he managed to keep confusing me.. But now he
confirms his fall with this to Ja "I concur 100%"
Jar said, "he is facing the same direction all year long. If the observer
does not rotate with the axis, how can he see a star trail?" The observer
would not actually be rotating, Yes moving around the sun, but not rotating..
And this is very incomplete, and thus lacking in accuracy, and is a
contradiction. The two underlined are a contradiction.
How can any observer maintain a fixed orientation and face the exact same
direction in space all year long? The only co-ordinate he can chose is a star,
and it is this star's status, stationary or moving, that is under question.
???? The closest to this would be to face vertically N.. And because the earths
motion is under question even this is not actually determinate.
Only if the world were static, or the stars were static and unmoving could
this orientation be achieved, and it is this continuous and unending problem of
indeterminate relative motions that is being debated, so far without success.
None of us with all the uncountable drawings plans explanations has come even
close to an acceptable understanding or concensus. Everything we try is
thwarted because of the need to assume some basic premise which is contestable.
So far I see no sound proof offered to Regner. Not 5, not 1. Excepting
perhaps the revolutionary hypothesis on the aether, not acceptable to MS or
Regner. My rational expectations is that GWW and Roberts input will be
dispensed with a very short and concise rebuttal as being inconclusive.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 2:40 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof
J A
I concur 100%.
Now what would you see if you repeated the experiment but with the Earth's
axis magically made orthogonal to the plane of revolution -- the ecliptic
plane? (The axis is now pointing at the (north or south) ecliptic pole).
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 3 November, 2007 4:32:16 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dual Axis Proof
I want to take one more stab at our Proof. From the AC position, If we
could magically stop the planet in it's path around the sun but still rotating
daily, we could still observe the nightly star trails, because the observer is
rotating with the axis. If we could magically stop the daily rotation but not
the yearly, what would we see? The observer would not actually be rotating, Yes
moving around the sun, but not rotating. Now reduce the baseline to zero and
what is the observer doing? It's the same whether the baseline is zero or 1au,
he is facing the same direction all year long. If the observer does not rotate
with the axis, how can he see a star trail?
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To prove it take a camera and spin it at 23.44 degrees subtended to the
perpendicular. now spin the camera 365 times on the 23.44 degree axis for every
one time that the whole apparatus is rotated 360 degrees .........this will
adequately demonstrate the effect and since the observers scale (observers
distance from axis of rotation) makes no difference and we would be using
actual stars at actual distances there can be no protest of scale......
All is well in the house of the Geocentric
Universe.............ahhhhhhhhh......:)
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not to dispare..you see it does not matter ..why? ..because the nightly
moves through 360 degress 365 times for ever 1 anual rotation so the observer
is at some point all through out the 365 nights is going to be in rotaion about
the anual axis in all 360 degreess ......there will be a star trail but only on
the nightly axis everything as stated previously still applies.. and it would
all be a big blur.....but we already have that photo available to us.....it is
not blured at all by stars tracing out multiple paths simoltaniously...
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Everybody,
I see a potential problem we need to consider in developing the dual
axis proof, which potentially could render it unusable. From an A-centric
position, basically it is this: On the nightly star trail the observer is
moving along the axis of rotation, therefore the view of the axis doesn't
change. On the annual star trail the observer is moving along a path that is
23.5 degrees off of the axis of rotation. This means that the observers view of
the axis is changing by the same amount that a particular star moves around
that axis, therefore negating the motion, making it appear to be motionless.
Now if this is true, then to test whether the annual star trail
exists, the observer would have to travel north or south by a certain number of
degrees for each successive observation such that his path remains on the axis
of rotation in question. The problem here is that if we did this we would be
reversing the problem and should expect to see an annual trail even if
Geo-centrism were the truth because we would be observing based on a created
axis.
Any axis we create will show what we should expect it to whether AC
or GC is the actual truth.
What does everyone think? I'm depressed.
JA
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.20/1107 - Release Date: 3/11/2007
11:22 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.20/1107 - Release Date: 3/11/2007
11:22 AM
Other related posts:
