[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:16:03 +1000
That I can follow but that I already found out today. Allen. The axis of the
ecliptic plane is 23 degrees off from the axis of the celestial sphere..
Thus 24 hour celestial rotation at the celestial poles is on a different axis
to that of the annual rotation on the ecliptic axis. So the two different axis
will have two different pole centres, HC or GC wise. And two different
observation points HC wise. In the GC mode the axies would intersect at the
earth centre more or less.
Now here is the point of our confusion, mine anyway.keping in HC mode. Lets
kick the world back off its tilt and put its axis in parallel to the axis of
the ecliptic.. I'm really getting getting eclipsed by all this....
From where I stand, Steves camera would record exactly similar star trails,
just different stars would be doing the rounds. Because such is a simple
mechanism of observation if the earth were rotating.
Geocentrism would be kicked by this though. If this happened , then we would
have to accept an earth rotation, as the stars cannot be doing a tango like
that.
Come to think of it , a nice change in the tilt would solve all our arguments
would it not.. Any spare nuclear bombs anyone.. I'd be the mad scientist to
try an experiment like that.... Now I definitely am going to open my first can,
and it only 2pm...
Phil.
Hang on... an experiment.. Instead of a 24 hour time exposure.. put the
camera in the same spot, and spin it one revolution in a second.
Do this 365 times equally spaced over the 24 hour period.. see if there is any
difference in the frames..
plm.. genius..
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
See attached............
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well I must really be dumb... because I cannot understand a singly point
Allen is saying, that would enable me to draw a diagram...And not a single word
that supports the basic diagram of geocentrism ..
Every 23 hour and 56 min + the earth is in the same rotational position it
was the night before over the course of a year and marks out a ROTAION
what in the world does that mean?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:36 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
Thank you, Allen. You have seen this from the beginning!
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
What you guys cant seem to get your head around is that the nightly
trails are due to a observers change in orientation to the stars nightly 360o.
A rotation around a axis period! They exist period! Every 23 hour and 56 min +
the earth is in the same rotational position it was the night before over the
course of a year and marks out a ROTAION.If the stars were to far away they
would not produce star trails around that annual radius they certainly would
not produce start trails from a rotation who's radius is 23,000 times
smaller..!? It is the same cause the observer moves though 360o change in his
orientation to the stars. The annual rotation would have to produce at least
star trails at least the same size as the nightly because it is the same
mechanical action. Even If they did produce the same size trails, (they produce
none) then you could...caugh...caugh.claim you would not see any bigger trails
because they were too far away to make the them any bigger .but there are no
star trails! No trails, the same size or any size,.. none!!!! If the rotation
of the observer orientation to the stars on such a small daily radius produces
those trails due to a change in 360o orientation to the stars nightly
...well..that is exactly what you do annually over a much larger radius. The
difference is annually they do not produce anything , even thought the observer
has still traversed thorough all 360O of orientation to the stars just as he
does on the nightly axis , the only difference is it is a radius that is 23,000
times larger and NO TRAILS EXIST ON THE ANNUAL AXIS !? The distance to the
stars is irrelevant ..why?... because the trails are produced nightly due to a
change in the observers orientation to the stars about a axis of rotation on
such a small radius.. If star trails could not be produced around the annual
axis because they are too far away then there is no way to account for the
nightly ones....IT'S THE SAME STARS!!! And IT'S THE SAME IDENTICAL ACTION, only
larger (except that the change in orientation to the stars takes place around a
axis of rotation who's radius is 23,000 times larger) !? The absolute best you
could claim to "explain" this is to say that the y are not any larger around
the annual axis (same size) because even that much of a change in radius or
rotation (around the sun) would not make a difference, ........... BUT THEY
DON'T EXIST AT ALL!
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Re this thread, and Regner's question, I have to withdraw my previous
statement that observations of the rotations of the North or South stars or any
stars for that matter, are evidence of support for geocentrism.
One would have to considerably reduce the alleged and accepted
distances ..NO...distiance is irrelevant....these stars are from the solar
system, for this hypotheses to have any value. I see no evidence that would
convince me that these distances are wrong.
I apologise for any distraction I caused. It was fun though, as I was
forced to get with the facts, which I now want to forget.
I continue to hold to my original stated position in support of
geocentrism, namely that the laws of Newton hold true but are incomplete
without the effect of an aether being included. Therefore I do not have any
facts as such, but merely a hypotheses , in support of geocentrism.
Philip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date:
28/10/2007 1:58 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date: 28/10/2007
1:58 PM
Other related posts:
