[geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Philip,
We are not discussing all the planets orbital planes ( or any combination
thereof), only the ecliptic to the earth is what is in question ..Why
?..Because, that is what the earth's orbit sits on. ( regaurdless of all the
other planets paths or affects to that path) A photographic plate on the earth
takes a rotational path on the ecliptic (earth's) that gives it the exact same
motion to that axis, over the course of a year as a photographic plate does on
the nightly. The only difference is the period of the rotation, since we have
already established that "size does not matter"
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For Allen. I would have thought astronomically for our purpose we would
prefer invariable ecliptic
The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky, as it
appears to move in the sky in relation to the stars, this apparent path aligns
with the planets throughout the course of the year. More accurately, it is the
intersection of a spherical surface, the celestial sphere, with the ecliptic
plane, which is the geometric plane containing the mean orbit of the Earth
around the Sun. The ecliptic plane should be distinguished from the invariable
ecliptic plane, which is perpendicular to the vector sum of the angular momenta
of all planetary orbital planes, to which Jupiter is the main contributor. The
present ecliptic plane is inclined to the invariable ecliptic plane by about
1.5°.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 1:34 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
It resides at 90o to the ecliptic plane.
Thanks Allen... Which ecliptic plane specifically. ?
Philip
There is only one Phil,
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_635.html
The ecliptic plane is defined as the imaginary plane containing the Earth's
orbit around the sun. In the course of a year, the sun's apparent path through
the sky lies in this plane.
Also Philip I have to commend you. Yes, pin Regner down and insist he answer
Nevile?s question because he doesn?t seem to be in any hurry to address any of
the 5 reasons he asked for except the Celestial poles argument?ummmmmm?I bet
he thought that was going to be the slam dunk for him???J .....Although, I
have to say he doesn?t seem to be in too much of a hurry to address it either
except to say ? it is not a theory?!?hehheh..That?s it Regner!?deny deny deny?&
claim that the earth does not have two axis of rotation by claiming "spin"..(
Good one Regner, they will never be able to see through that...LOL) i
understand him though, realy, he must deny that there is any rotational
conditions of a photo graphic plate affixed to the earth over the course of a
year?.Disappointingly, however, his ?arguments? ?.choke?..ok assertions that
the obvious does not exist is most likely and probably the best strategy he
has?.. yea, he should sick with that!........Apearently, Regner
blew Robert Sugenisis completely off ( Robert Addressed reason #2 in the
original list if you all remember although Robert even offered a whole
different set of 5 then the ones I gave Regner).....I have to give it to good
ol Regner, he has got everyone talking about everything under the sun except
the issues that were originally put before us ( the 5 reasons for
Geocentricity) I thought he was going to address the Celestial poles argument
there for a while,that at least was reason #4 . I understand his delima though,
he cant move to fast people might might want to him to answere some real
questions about the position of those photographic plates over the course of a
year and how that oddly resembles (exactly if the baseline distance to the
stars has not effect) the same condition nightly ..ummm?..I can see why i needs
to leave that alone for awhile ...... ?.I better put those original 5 reasons
here just in case he forgot?..Yes?.?That is probably the ?real reason? that
although he complained about a disciplined discussion his comments thus far
have truly spoken volumes for us????. and said absolutely nothing!
but Here they are again...just in case the light shines in the darkness and
darkness begins to get a clue.......!?
.............................
Reason #1 (restated to "support Geocentrism" ;-)......... there are only two
basic possibilities, there is no valid logic path that can a demonstrate the
a-centric position...( this is the "reason" i don?t accept it)
2. All attempts to prove motion have come up short & or non existent......(
I will defer further comment on this to Robert Sungenis? posting since he has
already addressed this very point as his point #1, in much more detail)
3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show
concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth ......
4. .....The relative motion of the stars nightly produce an observable
pattern ( nightly star trails)....However, annually around the north
secondary Northern annual axis of rotation there is no observable pattern
that can or has ever been demonstrated to coincided with that supposed
motion....(I will defer this point to Nevile & Steven Jones as they make this
point in their/his post as well)
Reason #5 (restated to "support Geocentrism" ;-)..........there are only two
basic possibilities and the only valid logical path can and will demonstrate a
geocentric position...( this is the "reason" i do accept it)
The following is where Regner both accepted and rejected reason #1..!?
original post was October 24 i belive.....
.........................
You stated" Thanks for your response, Philip. My name, however, is Regner...
You ask: ``2. Why is evidence ("reasons" cause thats what you asked for) that
claims doubt on "alleged facts" (reasons) proving the earth moves not
acceptable as a "potential fact" (reasons) in support of the case that it
doesn't.'' ( geocentrism)..Phill continuies his original posting added for
context.."After all if we claim the earth cannot be proved to move, that fact
must support the case for it being still.
Regner: I have actually never said that, and I would very much encourage that
kind of arguments.....
Well that is Exactly what i have done in my point #1, but you have done
everything to avoid that point when I made it..??
previously you object to my "reasons" with your reasons as follows:
Your point 5 is a summary if the consequences if 2-4 are true, which meansit
is not a point in itself. Your point 1 is irrelevant here, since it is not in
support of a geocentric Universe."
Which is it!?.......I guess i will have to address both sides since you seem
eager to play both sides of the fence on this issue. If your far too busy to
address your inconsitincy.....well.... maybe you dont have time for the big
questions..?
The fact that "we cannot assume the earth to be in motion" does "support
geocentrisim" logicaly. Further, it is, by defintion of motion and
geocentriticy, a relevant "reason" . .What is the major malfunction here?
As for my point #5......
First: Let me get this strait you think that the "reasoning" or logic path,
used "in fact" to evaluate other "relevant" facts is a invalid or a
"irrelevant" "reason" for acceptance or rejection of a Theory!?......Let me
get this strait again, you wish to examine only certain facts eternal of any
examinaion of the very logical frame work in which to evaluate them in !?
Ok how about these "reasons" for geocentricity..
1. The sky is orange
2 fish swim in the sea
3. The sky is blue
4 birds fly
5. everyone dies...!?
How are you going to argue that these do not "support", ney, even prove
geocentrism false, eternal of a "reasoned" construct.....UH!? If the logic
employed is a "irrelevant" "reason" as you say for accepting or rejection of a
theory, then you can just make any list and claim it as evidence for "a reason"
for anything,( the reasons don??t even have to have any relevance to any
meaningful discussion or logical path, because you have already decided it is
"irrelevant"? ) ...Well....I can do the same here and proclaim that the
"reasons" for your objections to my "5 reasons" are "irrelevant" to this
discusion..........I guess you can go home now.....?
Second: Even in the common everyday vernacular if one were to ask the
question .."why(reason) do you believe xyz? and the respondent answered
"because it makes sense (logical). No one would question the fact that his
"reason" (he felt it was logical) was "relevant" for why he believes xyz?.!??..
This is true regardless of whether or not he had a open or closed mind,
regardless of if his "reasoning" could be shown to be ultimately justified/
sufficient or insufficient/unjustified. The issue of sufficiency or
justification would be what was examined next if you were to attempt to
convince him otherwise?.. It would not be proper to claim is "reason" is
irrelevant..? how is it irrelevant? how does the logical path he used to arrive
at his conclusion not a Reason for what he believes!? this is utter nonsense,
in an attempt to avoid the issue. This is not a attempt to develop meaningful
progress on the issue of science as it relates to motion of the earth this is
called
avoiding the inevitable thing you do not want to face.
Third: These are my reasons not yours! Now, you are arguing with your own
construct (list my 5 reasons) to this very discussion!? You stated"it is not in
support of a geocentric Universe." I thought that was the point of this
disscusion was to decide if my "reaons" supported a Geocentric universe. I
guess we can all thank you for making a determination about our own reasons for
us .....We should all just stop now and ask you what the correct answerer to
the issue under consideration is..!? Wether or not my reasons are invalid or
irrelevant is what you must demonstrate, not merely assert!. I have already
demonstrated their "relevance". If think you are just going to wave your "magic
pen" and proclaim my reasons as invalid or "irrelevant" external of any logical
reason for such a proclamation, then i too hereby proclaim any and all
"reasons" that you may offer up, that i don?t like, as irrelevant to this
discussion? .....How can you claim my "reasons" don?t support
geocentrism if you don?t apply or consider the "logic" they are framed in as a
"reason" or not? If you do agree we must consider the "reasoning"/ logic, then
what in the world are you protesting? You asked for my reasons, not yours! I
gave you "my 5 reasons". You can't demonstrate how they are irrelevant
"reasons" .
Finally: Here let me word it this way for you .......this is
exactly....Philip: 2. Why is evidence (reasons) that claims doubt on "alleged
facts" proving
the earth moves not acceptable as a "potential fact" (reasons) in support of
the case that it doesn't.'' ( the earth does not move)....."After all if we
claim the earth cannot be proved to move, that fact must support the case for
it being still
Regner: I have actually never said that, and I would very much encourage that
kind of arguments.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It resides at 90o to the ecliptic plane.
Thanks Allen... Which ecliptic plane specifically. ?
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 7:29 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
North Ecliptic Pole....It resides at 90o to the ecliptic plane......
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: DIV { MARGIN: 0px }
Whats the NEP stand for ? Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 4:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale
Neville J
You said -
By 'NCP' (in your question at the bottom), I assume that you mean 'NEP' ?
How embarassing! And just when precision and correct choice of terms was
critical. Yes!
Later you said -
1. The camera must not be manipulated by the operator, other than to determine
how long to keep the shutter open for. In particular, the camera must not be
reorientated for the period of the exposure. This will ensure that whatever
movement we capture on film will be due to the World's motion. Yes.
2. A size of R (= the radius of the World) or 1AU are both insignificant when
compared to the distances to the stars. Yes.
3. The World takes 23h 56m 4.091s to rotate once about its axis. Yes.
4. The World takes 365.25 solar days to orbit the Sun. Yes.
5. The difference between a solar day and a sidereal day is approx. 4 mins. Yes.
Are we all agreed so far? Five out of five! Very good. But you'll still have to
come back on Monday. |[:-)
Paul D
---------------------------------
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: 269.15.28/1123 - Release Date: 10/11/2007
3:47 PM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date: 11/11/2007
10:12 AM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date: 11/11/2007
10:12 AM
Other related posts:
