[geocentrism] Re: Magnitude of scale

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:57:15 -0800 (PST)

Philip,
  1. Well the context in Neville?s comments would be important in understanding 
what he was getting at....In any case however,the ecliptic axis is just as 
"imaginary" or "real" as the nightly one. This is the point that gets missed 
and overlooked. So regardless of how you "view it" ( "real" or "imaginary"), it 
is the same thing as the nightly axis and thus must produce the same effects 
for the same reasons as the nightly celestial axis does.
   
  2. On the contrary i have been very fair to Regner. He However, makes 
pretense but ignores  post and people he knows are a threat to his positions 
and arguments...You really should read his post again Phil......The point i 
make is in fact a environment that Regner himself should be most familiar with 
in the MS world.............Shun & Shame.. At least I have been consistent with 
my own positions and statements.......Which is a lot more then anyone can say 
for him. He ignores and avoids the issues and yet pretends to have some greater 
understanding. I will not let him get away with it. You see it is his tact not 
mine that allows his foolishness and that of others like Dawkins to run free 
and clear. No one bothers to call them on it. You think you are being civil to 
him and your not. He doesn?t care about you or your civility or the truth for 
that matter he is here for one purpose only,  to make a mockery of you and 
everyone else here by attempting to feed what he perceives
 as the chaos without himself being coherent or consistent in his own 
positions?.. Regner is a MS attack dog ..? He can turn it around ?.but I?ll 
wager he does not ( ill go further I?ll wager some buddy of his put him up to 
it)?he either hopes we will get feed up with him so he can say we kicked him 
off (thus making him a martyr) or dance around as long as he can and attempt to 
get us at each others throat and claim ?I tried to reason with those folk? and 
?they cant even get along with themselves??? I say these things from 
experience,.. ?.I know many will say ?Allen your overreacting??just remember ?I 
told you so??I this kind very well?... If it is a question of Regners 
time...well...he certainly allows himself to get easily distracted by 
everything under the sun except the issues that even he himself started this 
whole thing off with....If he has so little time to devote to the issues he 
requested then we should certainly not distract him any further with these 
other side
 issues.............   No, I say shun & shame on him and he deserves every bit 
of it, until he demonstrates otherwise!
  

philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
        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.
   
  I like you writing that Allen, because Neville rejected my claim that the 
axis of an orbiting body was imaginary and not a real axel.  However I would 
make it real as regard the sun being a short axel, and the gravity force as 
being a spoke of a wheel. Likewise the axis of the earth is contained by the 
poles..  The extension into space is an imaginary geometrical extension into 
infinity. 
   
  Philip. 
  Not sure of the rest you wrote till I get it computed...You sounded a bit 
beserk...  and not fair to Regner. Lets not let emotion  (feelings I do not 
have) interfere with reason..  plm

    ----- 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: