[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

  • From: Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:34:33 +0000

Nice reply, here is Allan's latest drawing with a bit of Gaussian-blur followed by unsharp-masking to create an "anti-aliased" effect too.


Allen Daves wrote:
Ja,
here is one more diagram for you to be used with the previous one... I sent two diagrams one in real color and the other I inversed the colors as per steven...... 1. Your projection image is mechanically wrong. The angles diverge not merge.......my model is mechanical correct and uses appropriate scaling.. 2. your assuming that every star in the sky will merge with every other star and all the other stars in the sky when viewed at 23.44 o ..wow .......wow again..what an amazing coincidence!......_*That does not work!!!*_ ..The distrobution of the night sky is not isotropic. 3.The exposures are not limited to midnight nor are they even limited to the same time every night almost any exposure on almost any interval at night over the corse of a year would cause the camera to rotate through all 360 degrees of the solar axis of rotation, even if it were just in pin drops & traces that deviate from the nightlyons at differnt angles and must demonstrate the secondary motion around the larger secondary axis for the same reasons that the nightly axis is demonstrated observably............It still shows divergence, even if it were mechanical correct, If this were a real photo graph of all the stars taken at various intervals the camera would still rotate around the solar axis of rotation /(regardless of what time of night the exposures were taken)/ and thus it would be demonstrated as a big blur ..my point not yours..... 4. The experiment in question works (mine) ...You still don't have a explanation for why the experiment which is smaller works but the earth's motions , nightly as well as annual do not? You have not even addressed the experiment which was after all the challenge to begin with... I afraid your explanation is just a bunch of confused bits and pieces about things you are assuming, which are false.....now disprove mine and you could then and only then prove yours... mine proves that the motion does not exist.....yours dose not even address mine except in imagination.....go do the experiment then tell me it is wrong and explain why, but you have not nor can Regner or anyone else for that matter....all your doing is giving me a bunch of assumptions that are clearly wrong...


*/j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:

    Allen,
    Allow me to demonstrate. Actually, your mention of the helicopter
    is what got my confused questioning to gel into something I could
    better understand, so I have used the helicopter as my device. I
    found this much easier to visualize and draw the motions. The
    Helicopters body will represent whatever axis we are considering.
    The box on the ground beside the helicopter is any star you want
    to consider a star trail for. The rotor is either the baseline of
    earths radius or its orbit depending on whether you are talking
    about the nightly or annual trail. The Camera on the end of the
    rotor the camera sitting on a tripod anywhere on the earth.
    Drawings 1, 2, 3 are of the setup of my system to simulate the
    nightly star circle. The only difference between 1,2&3 is that I
    am increasing the length of the rotor axis, so that you can see
    where the circle produced is heading as the distance begins to
    negate the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7 shows the positions
    of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 9 shows the
    results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo through one
    revolution in each of the three drawings). The circle is
    progressively moving to center on the axis of rotation. Exactly
    what we see in the sky and what your model predicts.
    Drawings 4, 5, 6 are of the setup of my system to simulate the
    annual star circle. The only difference between 4,5&6 is that I am
    increasing the length of the rotor axis, so that you can see where
    the circle produced is heading as the distance becomes more
    important than the baseline (rotor length). Drawing 7 shows the
    positions of the camera as it is swung around the axis. Drawing 8
    shows the results (the trail formed by taking a timelapse photo
    through one revolution in each of the three drawings). Both
    circles (the axis circle and the box circle) are decreasing in
    size and will diapear into a dot with enough distance. Exactly
    what we see in the sky, but not what you are predicting.
    So what is different in my model to yours? If your camera takes
    pictures 24 hours apart, you are not taking into consideration
    that the camera has not rotated with the axis of rotation you are
    trying to record, and as my model shows, that is all the
    difference needed to make the annual trails disapear.
    This is not a proof of HC, only a disproof of the disproof, which
    are not the same.
    JA...


    */Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:

        Ja,
        1. I would like to see this a little more readable..but all
        you are showing us is two sets of circles drawn form two
        differnt _*angles that merge*_...In HC *_the angles do not
        merge at the observerss position_* /(paper on which the
        circles are drawn)/ _*they are diverging at the observers
        location in HC look at the modle!.*_ The photographic paper
        records the events not some imagined inverse projected image
        in the sky..
        **
        2.Even if what you are proposing here were true
        ................Look at your own drawing.......The white paths
        diverge from the blue ones.......thats our postion not
        HC's.......so what does this prove.....?
        3.Tthis does not show why or how my experiement does or will
        not work.........if you bother to do the experiment you will
        see that the experiment works and there is no other
        explaination then the motion does not exist.


        */j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:

            I hate to say this, but I accept your double dog dare. I
            will post my "proof" that shows why no annual trails will
            be seen in HC, but first I must make it readable, plus
            it's way past lunch time. Then I'll point out the
            difference between them. I'll attach unreadable anyway for
            now.

            */Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:

                LOOK CLOSELY AT THE ATTACHED DIAGRAM........ NOW TELL
                ME WHY THIS WORKS AND HC IS UNNOTICABLE DOES NOT.....
                I HAVE TAKEN ALL THE GUESS WORK OUT OF THE CAMERA
                ANGLES AND PEOPLES BACK TO AXIS OF ROTAION AND SCALE
                AND EVERYTHING ELSE.........!?
                I HERBY ENVOKE THE DUOUBLE DOG DARE FOR REGNER, OR
                ANYONE FOR THAT MATTER, TO SHOW ME "THE ERROR OF MY
                WAYS"......

                */Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:

                    Philip,

                    With respect, and despite your trifold repetition
                    posting, it is not Allen but yourself who misses
                    the point, because you comment upon, "our
                    inability to visualise why a camera will not
                    detect which system is actually moving." In this
                    comment you simply assert that the camera cannot
                    detect something which you assume is there. But
                    the camera could detect it, the reason it does not
                    is because the second component of motion is not
                    there. This second component of motion is NOT
                    equivalent WITH RESPECT TO THE BACKGROUND STARS
                    between heliocentric and geocentric models.

                    The camera does detect what is moving, that is the
                    entire point. Regner, as far as I am aware, since
                    I was away at the time, wanted some proof of
                    geocentrism did he not? Here it is. One set of
                    star trails predicted by geocentrism and two sets
                    predicted by heliocentrism, for exactly the same
                    reasons. What do we observe? One set. So which
                    model is demonstrably wrong?

                    Uhmmm, difficult question.

                    What you are doing is quoting effects which are
                    explainable in both systems. What we are doing is
                    offering a proof of one system over another.
                    Something which cannot be explained away in the
                    heliocentric model or, if it can, Regner has not
                    yet attempted to do it.

                    Neville
                    www.GeocentricUniverse.com
                    <http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/>


                        -----Original Message-----
                        *From:* pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        *Sent:* Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:02:19 +1000

                        Allen You seem to have missed that this is
                        exactly what I said...
                        What you and miss is the fact "that newton
                        does not pretend to know why they act the way
                        they act. Newton does not know what the
                        mechanical force is...he is only explaing
                        it..his laws are descritptions of observation "
                        Allen You seem to have missed that this is
                        exactly what I said
                        Allen You seem to have missed that this is
                        exactly what I said
                        Allen You seem to have missed that this is
                        exactly what I said
                        And that is why I also said such has no
                        bearing on the question..as regards
                        Geocentrism being explainable within his "laws
                        are exact descritptions of observation" .. and
                        I also said, and will say it three times again,
                        "We have known about, and discussed this here
                        for years, why do we keep running away from
                        it? " We have known about, and discussed this
                        here for years, why do we keep running away
                        from it? We have known about, and discussed
                        this here for years, why do we keep running
                        away from it?
                        You went into a long winded nothing that
                        failed to eplain what is observed , namely the
                        world reacts against a flywheel, and therefore
                        must be moving according to all the known
                        mechanical laws of science..
                        You seem to have missed what I also said, so
                        I'll say again it three times..
                        In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC
                        system. In Newtonian physics thats the proof
                        of the HC systemIn Newtonian physics thats the
                        proof of the HC system..
                        and
                        We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to
                        win this debate.. I'm hoping Robert with GWW
                        can do that.
                        We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to
                        win this debate.. I'm hoping Robert with GWW
                        can do that.
                        We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to
                        win this debate.. I'm hoping Robert with GWW
                        can do that.
                        And you and me and all are not going to do
                        that by talking about illusions caused by our
                        inability to visualise why a camera will not
                        detect which system is actually moving.. Nor
                        will we do that by repeating over and over
                        that Newton is wrong, unless you can prove he
                        is wrong and supply an acceptable alternative
                        theory..
                        I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. I'm
                        hoping Robert with GWW can do that. I'm hoping
                        Robert with GWW can do that.
                        Now please go back and DO the flywheel
                        experiment for an hour.. not think about it
                        ... do it..
                        Philip.

                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Get Free 5GB Email – Check out spam free email
                    with many cool features!
                    Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
            around
            http://mail.yahoo.com



    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------


GIF image

Other related posts: