[geocentrism] Re: Reply to Paul
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:24:28 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
I'll comment in this colour.
The comment (grey signifies a quote) re:Reply to Paul is there because this
helps me to identify the thread in question while I'm writing in my usual
editor and I sometimes forget to remove it. Philip M doesn't like grey 'cos
it's hard for him to read so I make it as dark as I can but still show
differentiation.
If we were all totally disciplined, we'd have macros assigned to function keys
for all our members so as to save all that tedious [PM] said ... and [PD]
replied ... and [NJ] dissented ... and [JL] asked for clarification... but I
guess we are not all that disciplined.
Happy for now?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 30 October, 2007 5:36:31 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Reply to Paul
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 As the signature block at the bottom will indicate, I am Paul D
addressing 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? Here I am addressing the identity of the post to which I am
referring. 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). Again addressing the identity of a post. I've
extracted your comments and I will now respond to them.
As stated, I am now addressing Neville's comments (in red) from the subject
post. Note also that it is indented. (All Neville's comments are similarly
treated here. Also from here down, I am in black). I've used this tactic as a
trial because Neville has expressed in the past his dislike of multi coloured
ie -- multi generation commented -- long posts.
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.
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/
Other related posts:
