Second:  we can fix a satellite so that it looks at the NCP but freefloating such that any real rotation must manifest itself on that axis . . .  this is absolutly true because, otherwise the Gravity Probe B experiment would have failed as well . . . only the box will translate with the Earth since it is fixed to the Earth via ground stations. However, the freefloating satellite is only fixed wrt the box on two of its axis . . . the third axis which runs along the NCP free floats . . . it will not translate it must rotate if the Earth and the box have any kind of orbit translation or not. This is true because there is nothing to "lock" the satellite in a translation around the sun, it free floats in the same way the spinning part of a gyroscope would freefloat. Remember, the background stars do not move wrt the NCP/axis or in a GU they rotate into the same exact position every 23h56m4s thus a net motion of 0 around the NCP.  Allen Daves

 

NEP = North Ecliptic Pole,  SEP = South Ecliptic Pole

 

NCP = North Celestial Pole,  SCP = South Celestial Pole

 

HC = Heliocentrism, GC = Geocentrism/Geostatic, AC = Acentric  

 

Diagram # 4 below Created by Allen Daves:

 

Diagram # 6 below Created by Allen Daves:

 

 

 

 Diagram # 7 below Created by Allen Daves:

 

 

 

Diagram # 8 below Created by Allen Daves:

 

 

 

Diagram # 9 below Created by Allen Daves:

 

 

 

Diagram # 11 below Created by Allen Daves:

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
I think he ( Allen Daves ) is proposing an experiment that has a position wrt the universe that is "outside", "stationary" and "independent" of the universe, and since everyone says that kind of observation point does not exist, then he's saying why not just create an artificial one with a set of satellites and various other ground stations, equipment, etc.

 

 

Yes, that is in essence right . . . I'm trying to identify if a particular motion that is common to both the GU & HC constructs actually exists . . . I do not think it does . . . in HC the Earth is in orbit around the sun . . . in the GU equivalent aka Modified Tyconic Model . . . the stars are "centered" on the sun and the sun is going around the Earth.

I don't think that is happining . . . for the very reasons our detractors would point out . . . what then is the basis for the claim to a Earth centered universe . . . if only the sun is orbiting the Earth while the rest of the universe is orbiting the sun? As Neville Jones points out with negative parallax this must be the intrinsic motion of the stars not a indication of Earths orbit of the sun or the universe orbit of the sun. The experiment is designed to debunk that particular motion in GU or HC . . . as a result, if it does not exist in GU then it does not exist in HC and vise versa. Thus, HC is completely obliterated into nonsense, for without that motion everything else falls apart!  Allen Daves

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  

                                               Moving-Earth DECEPTION - HOME