[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:43:59 -0000
Dear James,
Your drawing is virtually the same as the one I did!
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 10:31 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
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
-----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 â?" 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
