[geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:24:58 -0800 (PST)
PURPLE
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
Excellent response -- I can deal with every statement and know with
considerable confidence that I understand what you are saying.
I'll choose this colour. (Well I like it -- it's pretty!) Actually, I don't
know what colour you see. It's repeatable here on Yahoo but if I compose off
line with Wordpad, it's closer to red.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 9 November, 2007 3:20:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.
Paul,
OK, I will keep this general for you now ..The Mechanics discused here are
quite simple. They are accurately reflected in the diagrams i gave you that are
themselves pretty self explanatory...but lets start back at square one so to
speak.............. Yes, lets keep it general for now.
comments to you in blue
.......................................
Now -- My understaning of your explination is that they are somehow the
same or are viewed the same..? I'm not too sure exactly what you mean here so
I'll try to explain and hope that you grasp my point. If you followed my short
exchange with JA on how I visualised the process which led me to accept his
thinking as illustrated in his "Drawing1.bmp", you will have seen the two
drawings I sent him in my two posts Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts
(Supplementary) From Paul Deema Tue Nov 6 18:23:19 2007 and (same thread) Wed
Nov 7 11:12:46 2007 which pretty much explain the mechanics of how I visualised
these actions.
Ok i can live with drawing "A".... For clarity sake -- we are talking about
my SevenViews.png? NO, you said..."as illustrated in his(ja's )
"Drawing1.bmp", although , i dont know why i refered to it as "a"..? In any
case i was responding to your comment and that was the and only drawing under
consideration....beside, use the drawings i gave you instead of
yours....why?...because.. your's do not demonstrate the poles argument and mine
do. I thought you were trying to show how the poles argument is in error my
diagrams demonstrate the argument that you are trying to debunk and yours do
not. They only demonstrate how you see things......which shows basically what
my "9" shows..........that you said confused you....? Yes -- but let's not be
distracted. Keep moving ahead while progress is in the offing.
The first thing to do in solving any problem is to reduce it to its essential
parts, if possible simplifying in the process. If the problem involves two (or
more) components -- treat each component separately. In this exercise, I look
at the daily (this means happens once per 24 h) you call it nightly, phenomenon
and ask "What do we need to do in order to record this event?" Well we all know
the answer to that one -- nail a camera to the Earth, point it at the centre of
rotation -- It does not have to be aimed at the center of roation and i think
this seems to be a key point for you, but it matters not if the camera is
facing in a differnt angle then the roation.
The reason this is so long coming, is that I have reconsidered this matter
and you are correct. And so long as the NCP is somewhere into the frame then
circles will form around it regardless of whether the stars or the Earth
rotate. (Drawing AxisOfRotate.png attached).
Again the nightly and annual are the exact same type of motion(rotation)...to
veiw the nightly you do not need to look or have the NCP anywhere, in the
frame. Therfore the same will hold true for the NEP
I may have to retract certain parts of SevenViews.png and the description.
Later. Onward.
Once you see this and the fact that you incorrectly model the motions, you
should then realise how quickly your arguments fall appart. Earth or stars, it
matters not -- chock the shutter open, wait an hour or three, remove the chock,
print the picture -- Voila! Star trails.
It gets more difficult to visualise the other part. No it is not. It is the
exact same action, with the exact same stars, only a larger motion ..What is
difficult to visualise is the fact that we don't see it, when we see the other
for the same reasons, and yet you insist that it exist.......I do not concede
this point yet as there is a fundamental difference. no differenece same action
(rotaion about an axis) same stars, same camera... concede?..its a
indisputiable fact, if you wish to deny that, you can but that will allways be
the reason you cant fully appreciate the problem
I realised my error concerning the necessity of changing my position above
when I realised that in my visualisation, I had simply rotated the camera
whereas what is happening is that the camera complete with its offset is being
rotated -- that is -- the camera is being rotated but so is the offset. YES The
pic attached may help. i saw the pic...no, it does not help your case as it is
still inaccurate of what is taking place. the reason you are having sucha hard
time visualising this is becuse you realy belive there is some fundimental
difference between the annual and nightly roations other then size and the
period of the rotaion. However, in the case of rotation about the NEP (or SCP),
the camera as I have placed it need have no offset and so long as it rotates
about the NEP rather than the NCP, the centre of rotation is in the frame For
"simplicity" sake i draw the camera facing the NEP. That is the eaisy way of
demontrating what you would see. However, as you seem to
think that it must face the NEP or keep it within the frame, this only
underlines some other false assumption you have about those two motions to
begin with..........As soon as i can figure out what you think the difference
is between the two rotaions i might be able to help you. But in any case, it is
that false assumtion that they are fundimentaly differnt and or that you must
have the axis in the frame. What ever it is that causes you to think tha,t is
also what is preventing you from understanding exactly what is going on in the
real thing... -- just as for the daily example -- and circles around this pole
-- the NEP -- will be evident. We can't see the ecliptic plane, or the axis at
the centre, or its inclination to the Earth's axis but we opine that they
exist, not physically but as intellectual entities. in the exact same way that
the NCP exist ..none of this would realy have come into question prior to
photographic plates...I think you are probably correct...That
is importaint, if you do not understand this, then this to would also prevent
you from seeing the "big picture" as it realy is...So we then devise a
substitute for the ecliptic disk, nail the camera to it, point it straight up,
chock the shutter open for a month or three, pull the chock, print the picture
and look. You say there will be no trails about the axis, I say there will.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I'll call a halt here Allen -- it's 06h00 and I really should sleep. Please,
a short note if you like -- to accept (or deny) tonight's efforts -- but
nothing new. Hint -- you still haven't answered those two questions! I don?t
know which other two questions you are referring to.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
wrong!...you will most certainly see nightly trails, I have said this over
and over.....? The debate then becomes an exploration of the actions and the
mechanics involved.
I've kept this deliberately general. The object is to agree on the principles
involved, the names of the parts etc. Are you still with me? Please try to
limit discussion to just these few points.
Look at the diagram again. You model things either incompletely or
incorrectly. If you are going to model the system you need and must model all
components of the model not just pick and choose..look again at the diagram i
gave you ..that model is the exact mechanics of the HC/AC earth sun system even
according to MS. That model will produce and demonstrate both motions on one
camera..but the reality will only ever produce the nightly ones..... that is
the rub..
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.
Other related posts:
