[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:14:40 +0000 (GMT)
Allen D
I'm having just as much trouble deciphering your drawings as I do with your
narratives. I'm going to give you some idea just what problems I have with your
drawings first.
>>>>> 2 axis of rotation.jpg. (This is a repeat in case you missed it the first
>>>>> time).
First item --
If A demonstrates differences in circles due to changes in latitude (radius)
Then no claim can be made that stars are too far away to be affected by a
change in radius.
and
2. Closer to the equator the larger the circles & Closer to the poles the
smaller the circles. Thus the radius of rotation is a factor in the size of the
star trails.....
A change in latitude will make no difference to the diameter of a star trail.
Where do you get these ideas? I calculated the magnitude of these factors in
another post and Philip M also commented, essentially in agreement. While he
didn't comment directly on this, Neville has granted that the stars, if greatly
distant, do kill all these effects to which you seem to be alluding.
Second item --
3. The radius of "B" is X times larger and thus should demonstrate
proportionally larger circles either at the poles or the equator about either
the 23 (deg) or at 90 (deg) axis over the course of a year.
You seem to have no idea of the mechanism for generating star trails because if
you did you would not make this statement.
Third item --
4. Any precession (not to mention around an ~10mil km elliptical orbit) to
account for this in the north would have to manifest itself in the south.
Because, even differences in degrees of latitude are enough deviation to
demonstrate an affect (sic) on the size of the nightly star trails.
Precession is not relied upon by heliocentrists for the explanation of star
trails nor do heliocentrists make any statement that this has any effect --
magnified or not -- in the south. I have no idea what has a "~10mil km
elliptical orbit". And again, latitude has no bearing on star trails.
Fourth item --
4. No difference is observed.
For your interest only -- you may wish to re-number it 5.!
Fifth item --
Conclusion: There is no orbit around radius "B"
This whole argument is what is known as a 'Straw Man' -- pretending to
represent the opponent's position and deliberately designed to fail. Now that
you've been rumbled, do you wish to reconsider?
>>>>>>>>>> 360.jpg
Well I've been looking at this one for some time now, and while I think that,
from the commentary in your posts, I've got some idea of what it is you're
trying to illustrate, the best summing up I can make is that it simply is not
clear. I would make one comment though -- and this is common to the previous
illustration -- you refer to the "Green arrow is the rotation about the 90
(deg) axis to the ecliptic plane". It appears that you are implying that the
Earth is centred on the ecliptic axis when it certainly is not.
I've attached another drawing -- I know mine are not as flash as yours but I
think they work anyway -- which depicts the Solar System as Heliocentrists see
it. Would you comment an any difficulties you see with this? (Your two drawings
are heliocentric in nature).
Depending on your response to this post, we may be able to continue the debate
but if you are unable to grant my points, we have little common ground.
Paul D
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/
Other related posts:
