[geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:53:52 -0800 (PST)
We can demonstrate what the rotaional effect from earth would look like if it
really existed by building/using a model that uses the same rotation mechanics
as the solar system in question ..But, to test if it exist, we don?t rotate
anything or change camera angles we look to see if the same effect is present.
If the earth is in real rotation the fixing the camera to the earth must record
that rotation. If it does not record that rotation then the rotation does not
and cannot exist. the example i gave was to demonstrate that
1. Scale is irrelevant in this case ( the effects of rotation)
2. stars that are offset by 23 dgrees or more will still show the circles
..your diagram philip was an attempt to show why/ how they would not. I prove
you wrong......
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Philip you realy dont get it do
you....?
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Yes U are right Allen so
long as you realise you are making an image...that is faking it.... I can do
that in the kitchen or a planetarium..
That is the Whole point .!?....If the rotaion exist in realitiy then you dont
have to do that or anything or move the camera the earth will rotate and show
that up on the film!...Since it does not the motion or rotaion in question does
not and cannot exist.....!?
If you rotate yourself or anything else, how do you know you are really
rotating, because you do not know what is at rest.. everything you do is just
relative motions.. this is a wasted discussion... all been done before.. some
people never learn.
Its as stupid as those who claim they they see the sun move across the sky
and therefore it must be moving... That is the most rediculous un reasoned
statement anyone but an ignorant savage could be expected to make.. And I take
that back.. I believe an ignorant savage could have more intelligence.. and
comprehend what basic relativity is about.
Is there a full moon over there... I get the impression you have to argue
for the sake of arguing...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: magnitude of scale.
In fact to go one step further if you take a camera on a 12 inch plate and
rotate it you will see that even the stars that are offset by 23 degrees will
make circles........you are letting the scale of it all confuse you about how
the mechanics work and the two are independent in this case.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Philip
You don't seem to get the crux of the matter, rotaion of a camera is what is
importaint. Not the magnitude of scale..a camera that rotates on a 12inch plate
will show star trails..so will a camera on a 150mi km plate there no difference
....Your whole dialog about scale is irrelevant. IF it were relevant then a
camera on a 12 inch plate would produce a differnt size star trails then the
nightly........you say a ha..see you admit it will not be a different size
because the are so far away and we are so comparably small..........and i will
say but a ha................i'm discusing rotation in a totaly differnt
direction,.... not the size or scale of any rotation!
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well so far everyone is carrying on under the thread "magnitude of
scale" without comment on the points I made, and as if they just did not get
it.. except Allen of course, because he re-sent out my diagram which Paul
should have applied to his plank,
but Allen seems to not understand photography. Or maybe he does.
Polaris is 430 light years away on the hypotenuse of the enclined angle from
the ecliptic. If we apply the formula H= sine 23 x430 we get polaris is 167
light years away from the ecliptic axis.
On my diagram to scale where the planet is less than a millionth of a mm and
the orbit is 0.5mm across, any object 13 kilometers away and to the left of the
vertical another 5 kilometers, doesn't it seem rather irrelevant deciding what
is an accurate camera angle?
Even if the limit of the sphere was just 13k away.. But this sphere is
infinitely further.
I just have to say it again, there is no physical rotation of anything around
the ecliptic axis, except in HC the planet earth. All of the stars as observed
on earth rotate around the celestial axis for no other reason than that the
world turns. If GC is spot on then the stars rotate around this celestial earth
axis. If HC is spot on, then no stars rotate anywhere, and certainly not around
the ecliptic. Its the insignificant earths orbital rotation that you are trying
to record.
In my diagram polaris can never ever appear to rotate around the ecliptic,
anywhere except on a photographic plate, and this is only due to the plate
itself being rotated once in 12 months.
Because of magnitude, there will be no difference between what is observed or
recorded in one daily rotation or one annual rotation. Why ? Because at that
scale at 0.5 mm nothing has moved.. A camera is still in the DOT at any time.
We can say that the image will be the same as if we were on the sun looking up
the vertical axis, such is the magnitude we are at. Spin the camera anywhere
inside that dot at any rate of rotation and the picture trails will all be
identical.
See dot magnified. attched
Likewise if we were aimed at the celestial pole.. Except that all the stars
will now all rotate around a different axis, and so individual stars will paint
a different sized trail. But every trail will be identical in size for that
location angle, irrespective of what time of the year or what rate the picture
is exposed.
And if the earth is fixed, and the stars rotate this will produce a circle
on the plate exactly the same as the first instance. Nothing is resolved merely
by pointing the camera to a different axis.
And Why? the same old reason posted here for years.. No stable state of
rest outside of heaven can be found.
But the gyroscope is an enemy of geocentrism. The centuries long slow
precession of the world physically supports a rotating world as its gyroscopic
resistance to the more gradual curved motion due to galactic rotation, is ever
so slowly opposed.
These are physical realities. . Exercise: tip the world over till it is
laying at 90 degree tilt . Now do all the pictires again... New earth axis, old
earth axis, and ecliptic... Its gunna be difficult to keep the camera on the
ecliptic pole. Philip
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.27/1121 - Release Date: 9/11/2007
7:29 PM
Other related posts:
