[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
Since the Earth is not moving in a GS model and in the HC it is moving around
the sun, the only way star trails could appear in a GS model is if the whole
universe was vibrating around the earth over a period of one year with a 3%
elliptical and a ~150 million mile radius. But there are no star trails, which
excludes the possibility of the earth moving around the sun. As Dr Jones points
out, if the nightly star trails are due to a ~7000 mile circle (spin) of the
earth then the 300,000,000 mile circle that the earth makes around the sun
should produce annual star trails that are ~42,000 thousand times larger than
the nightly ones. If the nightly star trails are due to a say ~.0000005 of a
degree angle between the observer and the star and that produces a star trail
that is say ~.5 inch across (in the sky)over the course of one night then over
the course a year it should produce one~43,000 times that size or ~21,500
inches in dia, because the nightly circle is only ~7000 miles
big in
diameter, the yearly is ~300,000,000 million miles big. How could it not be
there? But it is not there! If ~3500 miles (Earth?s Radius)represents .0000005
of a degree at 430lys, then the angle of the observer after moving 300,000,000
miles away would change drastically from .0000005 of one degree to ~.214 of a
degree from where it was before. I?m not using trig here just REAL ROUGH
numbers off the top of my head. In any case it is a big difference. I think it
would be good if Dr Jones could SIMM this in GU 2005.
Allen
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I appreciate the answers to my question, but maybe I'm dense on this one 'cause
I don't get it. If a star gives a certain angle, then moving that star further
away only decreases the angle we would measure. The base of our traingle, the
width of the planet for GC or the width of orbit around the sun for HC would
remain the same. Both distances incredibly small compared to the distance of
that star giving the "looks more like a line than a triangle" arguement it's
validity.
For GC the universe can be large or small and the star trails would look like
they do but for HC the universe must be large for the star trails to look like
they do.
So, I still don't see how this statement could be true: :"Incidentally, these
star trails can only be explained by a rotating universe, rather than by a
rotating World." I would like this statement to be true, but I don't see how it
can be.
Thanks,
James...
Philip wrote:
thats is what I am saying angles are angles and the further the distance the
greater the displacement., Phul
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
Correction: This is what I meant.
The further away the earth is from a given star the smaller the angle will be
but the displacement of whatever that angle is will also be proportionally
larger.
Allen Daves wrote:Both GS and HC are essentially just a mathematical coordinate
systems for what we observe here on Earth. A method for calculating how far
away and where something is going to be at any given time in the heavens when
we look up. The appearance of motion is identical, It is the theoretical motion
that gets the stars and planets to the right place at the right time that
differs. However, at externally large distances any discrepancies in the two
methods for achieving those positions will show up. This is due to the fact
that a ~.0000005 of a angel at the point of origin is imperceptible to the
observer at the point of origin, however at 430ly away it will displace ~7926
miles. The average male is 5'6". Relatively specking the displacement of that
angle at that distance is overwhelmingly enormous compared to the observer. The
further away the earth is from a given star the smaller the angle will be but
so to will the displacement of
w
hatever
that angle is. Basically, we as the ob
servers
will always be microscopic compared to the displacement of the angles at those
distances, thus we can observe this phenomena quite readily.
It is interesting to note that the HC have estimated Polaris' distance from
Earth to be everywhere from 360 to 820 light years . The 430ly figure is from
the Hipparchus satellite estimates.
j a wrote:"Incidentally, these star trails can only be explained by a rotating
universe, rather than by a rotating World."
Why is this true? I thought that the appearance of motion in either HC or GC
were the same?
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
