[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 20:26:16 +0000 (GMT)
Neville J
Love the imagery of your first paragraph! I believe the trendy vernacular is
LOL.
I answered J A quickly while working on something else -- the Bonkers Machine
-- and neglected to provide the motion you suggest below. In my imagination, I
thought of the Earth's relationship to the Sun in the the same way we tend to
think of the Moon's relationship to the Earth -- "If we always see the same
face, it can't be spinning!" but clearly J A did say 'stop'. You will recall a
protracted but ultimately successful effort to convince one member that this is
so. It is a common error and despite my slight affinity for this subject, I
fell into the trap. If you will allow me to set the Earth spinning in this
synchronous manner I believe that we will again see all the stars not just half
of them.
I agree that star trails -- about CP or EP -- do not demonstrate which bodies
move and which don't and how. As I've remarked before, the planetary gear box
is not so named idly. An explanation of what is occurring is possible
regardless of which gear we've pinned to the mat. This whole debate about star
trails is a mentally challenging frustrating largely acedemic exercise but I
believe that the non existance of EP trails is a falsehood and I have not yet
given up the fight to show that that is so. As they say in the movies -- Watch
this Space!
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, 3 November, 2007 7:41:19 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
Paul,
You are not the only one going quietly bonkers, I assure you. And as for not
looking in dark cupboards, I generally avoid groping around in dark cupboards,
because I might stumble into wooden devices with big springs attached to them.
The camera mounted such as to look along a line of sight parallel to the
ecliptic polar axis does rotate about that axis as the World orbits the Sun
annually. For this reason, I maintain that by taking snapshots at solar day
intervals, we ought to get circular star trails about the second rotation axis.
Now, as to why I say this:
The scenario that JA invented (and which you agreed with 100%) does not explain
how observers see all the stars in their hemisphere over a 12-month period. It
is thus a model that cannot be offered to explain reality. In short, it is
irrelevant. A red herring. It removes movement that heliocentrism is absolutely
reliant upon. Of course, in that scenario, we won't observe the effect. It's
because the motion has been stopped. Remove the rotation motion and you will
remove the effect. But remove this and we find ourselves talking about
something which is nothing to do with the heliocentric model.
Once you allow the camera's physical location to rotate about the ecliptic
axis, as would occur at solar day increments, then you have the same sort of
rotation as that observed nightly about the celestial axis.
You must allow it to slowly rotate, since otherwise you will not explain how
you can possibly see all the stars in your hemisphere over 12 months.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click. Visit
www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
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:
