[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:22:40 -0700 (PDT)
Paul,
The point is -- and I'll say it loudly -- 1. the camera must be aligned on
the axis of the pole you are photographing; No it does not although it would be
ideal, a camara off angle will show a off angle photograph of the same effect
if it exist in reality...it does not exist which is the point.... 2. the
exposure must be appropriate to the length of time required for the phenomenon
to occur; and..OK yes, over the period of a year 3. the base line of the
observer has no repeat NO effect on the resulting image. Whether it does or
does not, the base line is not the issue here?..fine assume you are right..who
cares?... The issue is the angle of observer to polaris or any star for that
matter has now changed due to a change in axis that is in rotaion around an
axis......you have already admited in your last diaagram that the distance of
the star from the axis of rotaion is a varible in the function of the size of
star trails....... ad diferent angle will produce a
different size......
The quesion Paul, is why don't we see star trails around this annual axis
that is 23.44 offset/ different from the nightly one that produces startrails.
by the same rotaional motion, there should be some trail ......NONE EXIST THUS
THERE IS NO ROTATION!
Sorry to have to shout, but I've been saying this over and over for 18
months and so far no one seems to have really grabbed hold of it. I'm sure that
the 24 half monthly exposure shot could be made but it would have to be
contrived by 'mis-aligning' the camera so that the north celestial pole was
successively positioned in your view finder at each of those 24 positions. Of
course you need not wait two weeks between exposures -- you could do it on
successive nights but then there would be no point. In addition, if you wished
to have radial symmetry in the photo, you would have to rotate the camera by
the appropriate amount before each exposure, but as the image will be a simple
circle or two, no one would notice.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October, 2007 2:57:30 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
JA
Yes old man, you are so right!
You will be pleased to know (I just know you'll be pleased to know!) that I
have put in some effort -- two or three nights at least -- but as you can see
we are caught up in a maelstrom at the moment and -- to mix a metaphor -- if I
let go of the tail now I will be left far behind.
It is proving difficult for me to get it all together (the evolution paradigm
thing) I just don't seem to be able to take reasonably complex philosophical
concepts and reduce them to a single term for evaluation purposes any more but
I have not forgotten and will get back to it with any luck at all.
I've extracted this from your post --
It has been stated that this annual star trail does not exist. Has anyone
recorded an annual star trail??? I want to see the picture! If we superimposed
2 nightly star trail photos from 6 months apart (erase all circles except
polaris for simplicity) we should see the center of the two nightly circles of
polaris ~23 degrees apart, if they are not, then we have our proof positive of
the falsity of A-centrism.
No -- I'm afraid that won't work. You are confusing parallax with the effects
of differing axes of rotation. Don't feel too bad though, there has been
confusion enough for all to get a share. I'm hoping my last two posts may help
clear things up.
Paul D
---------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
---------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
Other related posts:
