[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:38:56 +1000

how much more would we detect it during the course of one year - which is 
effectively on a World with a 150,000,000 km radius? Neville
This astronomical observation is beyond my comprehension, but does it prescribe 
such an annual circle Neville? If the sun and stars prescribe a circle around 
the earth annually and daily, shouldn/t the polar star do likewise. This 
visualisation is so confusing..  

I try to imagine what if this star was right on the axix of the poles. then it 
would not be observed to move at all ,,  daily or annually unless the world did 
move around the sun as you showed. 

Philip.  


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dr. Neville Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 9:40 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles


  Hi James,
   
  The diagram by Jack uses artistic licence to exaggerate the effect.
   
  Polaris is not due north, but slightly offset. It is not so far away that we 
do not detect the fact that it describes a circle daily. If we detect that on a 
World with a 6,300 km radius, how much more would we detect it during the 
course of one year - which is effectively on a World with a 150,000,000 km 
radius?
   
  Also, the effect on the south celestial pole would be empasized by the tilt 
of the axis (the "ecliptic") and by the necessary wobble in the heliocentric 
myth.
   
  Neville.

  j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Well I just wrote this long diatribe on why I think the "Proof of 
Heliocentric incorrectness 3" is flawed and I lost the draft. Maybe someone 
didn't want me to send it. I'll test that with one more attempt.

  After reading the Proof and thinking how could anyone not see the logic in 
this arguement, I noticed that the Diagram included showed an earth that was 
summer in the nothern hemisphere all year long. So I wondered how the 
HelioCentric model would work if I corrected the "wobble" missing from the 
diagram. At winter solstice the North pole should point 77 degrees up from the 
plane of orbit (pointing toward the sun) and at winter solstice would be 103 
degrees. Now it would seem that the north pole would never (or maybe 1 or twice 
a year) point at the north star. So I looked up what the helio's had to say. 
Take two points (where earth is in space at two different locations half a year 
apart) and then draw a triangle with the third point being the North Star. Now 
push the north star further away and the triangle narrows. Push it far enough 
away and the triangle gets hard to draw, it starts to look like a like a line. 
With the distance that conventional science gives for the north 
  star,
  there is no way to differentiate the view of the north star at any point of 
the year and the same reasoning will hold true for the area that the south pole 
points at.

  If you take the diagram in the proof and make the same triangle and then push 
the north star far enough away you will get the same result: a straight line. 
And you can extend the line through the south pole and far out into space and 
then still do the same exercise - you can still get a straight line. 

  I am not attacking Geocentrism (which explains what we see also, but without 
the need for such large distances) just the proof.

  I think another thing that supports geocentrism and not HelioCentrism is the 
earth's wobble which so completely matches one year. Why not a complete wobble 
matching some fraction of a year? Which is more probable given the heliocentric 
view?

  I look forward to everyone's replies

  James...
  Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 



Other related posts: