[geocentrism] Re: Heliocentrism is dead
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:47:38 +1000
You'r all nuts.. Been there done that. Youse got a long way to go yet..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 5:15 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Heliocentrism is dead
It means Game point ...we win...:-)
HC is scientificaly untenable.....
It means Paul & Regner have converted to GC.....ok well ............we are
still waiting for that......:-o
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Steven,
What does this posting mean?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Heliocentrism is dead
Wow, this is amazing, I now proudly announce the secular
heliocentric/anentric blasphemy dead! Climb aboard for the grand-prize,
legitimate ones that is, don't let any of us be silenced by the NASA crowd
should they come with some "cash-incentives"!
Steven.
Allen Daves wrote:
Congratulations Paul !.
Your diagram shows and just proved that if the earth did in fact go
around the sun according to HC then the fixed camera focused ~parallel to the
ecliptic (north or south) axis, over the course of six moths will be pointing
in a entirely different direction and thus looking a different stars in a
different ecliptic latitude of the celestial sphere in the sky ( not just
different stars on the same ecliptic latitude) A wopping 24 degrees in a
different direction altogether with entirly different stars ....NOW GO DO THAT
AN SEE IF THAT EVER HAPPENS IN REALITY........hint....IT DOES NOT!!!
.........Paul, I knew you were a closet geocentrist all the time.....:-)
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings interested parties!
Comments in this colour
From j a Wed Nov 14 20:45:30 2007
What Paul is saying is the same thing I've been trying to get
across. An ally! When attempting to record an annual trail; as the camera moves
to the next photo op it also gets tilted by the rotation on the nightly axis.
Tilting the camera for the next photo alters where any particular star will
fall on the photo plate. Surley you must see how altering the camera angle
while collecting for a single trail (whether nightly or annual) would alter the
trail?
From j a Wed Nov 14 21:49:52 2007
Didn't we determine that 23'56" was the proper time to record the
annual star trail and that at 24hours we would not record a star trail? NO 24
hours exposures.. Sorry -- this time Allen got it right!
From Allen Daves Wed Nov 14 23:43:00 2007
I think I understand what you are getting at
now..?...........Allen! Can I truly stop trying now?
Well I've got a picture for you all anyway. Please tell me if you
don't understand this.
Paul D
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.32/1131 - Release Date: 14/11/2007
4:54 PM
Other related posts:
