[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 06:46:13 -0800 (PST)
I've added some comments in red
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Philip M
Short interspersions in this colour[].
Actually -- you use the term 'trails' but your methods suggest single
'instaneous' snapshots which will show only the positions of the stars in the
field of view. I've assumed this is what you intended.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 7 November, 2007 6:44:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
 I have tried very hard to comprehend what we were all attempting to
do. Yes in the beginning I thought we had something.. ..so I will ask you to
answer two simple questions.
1. If we take a picture of polaris from the same position and time on earth
and with the same angle of observation , once in January, and again 6 months
later. How will those pictures differ from each other ? I assume you mean the
that your tripod setup of the camera will not be touched or altered between the
two shots? For simplicity lets assume your camera points straight up. Your
camera is facing an angle, call it X degrees, off of the polar axis. In six
months the camera will be negative X degrees off of the polar axis and rotated
by 180 degrees. If you overlaid the two photos you would have 2 points of the
nightly circle polaris can produce every night.
2. If we take the pictures again at the same times with a different angle of
observation, aimed at the ecliptic if you wish, How will those differ from each
other? I get confused by the proper terminology, do you mean pointed to the
annual axis? In this case you would get 2 points of the annual circle. The
annual circle can only be recorded by altering the camera's angle with every
shot to correct for the earth rotating with a different axis (the nightly).
I should point out that in the case of Geocentrism, this would still work. In
fact, this method could be used to record star trails around any axis. It does
not prove HC.
I maintain that both pictures in exercise 1 will be identical except that the
star will show up on a different spot of the daily trail you have for reference
taken under the same conditions. [Absolutely] Yes
Further that both pictures in exercise 2 though different from those in
exercise 1., will be identical, except the star also will be on different spots
of the daily trail you have kept for reference taken also under the same
conditions. [Absolutely] No, see above. You are changing the angle that the
camera points, so a star in the heavens will be moved by the same angle in your
photo.
The two different trails will not be the same size due to the camera angle
change. [Sorry - no. It is the angular separation between any two stars which
determines the distance apart.] Yes, this is correct. One is a proper method of
recording the nightly and the other is the way to record the annual. But this
has nothing to do with the position from which the pics are taken, ie 2 AU
apart. [Almost true. Parallax may make a tiny tiny difference]. Correct, the
distance to the star makes the baseline basically 0. Which I think makes no
difference. correct.
The difference I think we are trying to detect for HC , is whether the earth
rotates in one solar day or in one sidereal day. It rotates in both, or should
I say both are definitions of period of the movement regarding the rotation of
the earth as it revolves around the sun. Whats that? How many sidereal days are
there in a 365 solar day year? [366.]
Am I confused or on a star trek er trail.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
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!
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 4/11/2007
11:05 AM
---------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
