[geocentrism] Re: Reply to Paul
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:36:31 -0000
Dear Paul,
With three different colours used in your email I haven't a clue who is saying
what and to whom.
Can you make sure you say who you are addressing or replying to?
Many thanks
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Reply to Paul
re:Reply to Paul
Neville J
Thank you for your rapid response, but before delving into it, may I say that
your post to Bernie B From Neville Jones Mon 29/10/07 8:10 PM Re:Is geocentrism
supported by facts? is one of the most reasonable I've read given the subject
matter and certainly the most reasonable from you that I can recall in our 18
month association. Well done! I'm not sure that you can afford to give up your
day job in anticipation of the Elmendorf prize but you might think about
applying for a Pulitzer.
Now -- down to brass tacks!
I'm not very accomplished at maths but one thing I do enjoy is deriving
simultaneous equations from stated data and solving them. Understanding this,
you will presently understand why I was so pleased to read your response to my
dissertation on star trails under the heading of Re: Is Geocentrism supported
by facts? (Supplementary). I've extracted your comments and I will now respond
to them.
Well, "frightfully obvious" is a deliberate choice of phrase to strengthen
the stance you are promoting, but in scientific terms our method of verifying
the predictions of the two models would no longer be available.
You have somewhat misjudged me here -- my intention was merely to indicate
how much simpler things would be if this were the case. Had this been so, I'd
not have lain awake pondering my next round response to Allen D! That it would
remove the chance of disproving the Heliocentric model by this tactic was just
the cherry on top so to speak though it would not have occurred to me without
your having mentioned it.
This is where you start to go wrong, because your camera mount mechanism is
designed to compensate for the difference in these two axes.
This is the bit which gave me so much pleasure. It gives me pleasure first
because you have correctly discerned the purpose for which this camera mount
was designed, and second (I hope this is true) you believe that the design is
sound. By now you should have discerned the third reason it gives me pleasure.
... Okay, this last half a sentence is all you really need to explain, the
rest of the preamble is superfluous and arduous to follow ...
Well the reason all that arduous preamble exists, is that this part of the
exercise is designed to demonstrate in practical terms that the experiment can
be readily performed. It is not the same thing as calling up a defence which
relies for its acceptance upon the view of the universe from the North Pole of
Uranus. It is necessary from my experience of this forum to cross all the 't's
and dot all the 'i's. Were this not so then our exchanges would be much briefer
and I'd get more sleep.
After all the unnecessary detail about camera mounts, you then ignore the
necessary detail you would need to support your contention!
It is too easy to omit something vital when you are close to the subject and
know it inside out. It is too easy to believe mistakenly that your listener
will see what you see. I guess that that is what I've done. If you know what
this missing detail is -- please tell me.
About the celestial polar axis, yes. About the ecliptic polar axis, no.
This sadly is where disappointment enters the scene. You've picked up all the
crumbs I've laid leading to the trap (figuratively speaking I assure you)
you've arrived at the (figure of speech) trap, then you walk off in another
direction! Perhaps that missing detail will assist?
My whole effort was designed to eliminate any effect of rotation about the
celestial polar axis, so that revolution about the ecliptic polar axis would
become visible. You've admitted above that the special camera mount would have
that effect. Yet now you tell me that you can still see that which you've said
would be eliminated and that that which should be visible is not!
Paul, let me ask you a question: Is there, to your knowledge or
understanding, any yearly rotation of the star field about Rigel, or Sirius, or
Betelgeuse or Capella?
[ I'll intersperse here -- no! Nor is there any nightly rotation, nor monthly
nor any other time period. Actually I just realised that to dot the 'i's and
cross the 't's here, I'd need to qualify this in a much wider context. If you
mean only in this galaxy and in a time frame less than one human life time then
I'd guardedly revert to a simple 'No!']
In other words, if you simply point your camera at one of these stars on
successive nights at the same time each night (which is actually irrelevant,
but never mind), would you expect to see star trails about that star in a
time-lapse photograph? Yes or no?
Firstly this is a question which cannot be answered with a yes or a no. There
are too many unknown factors about the camera, its placement etc etc. But the
fact that you ask the question makes me wonder whether you really understood
the first part of my dissertation involving Stella Surveyor. Your acceptance at
the bottom -- the only comment to Part 1 -- suggested that you did, but now you
are 'turning away from the trap' again.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
Other related posts:
