[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

Dear Paul,
If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of geocentrism, using 
star trails as part of their evidence,  was sustainable, would you also accept 
it or would still keep up the fight? And if so why? What is your overriding, 
burning reason for persisting in your support for heliocentrism?

Jack 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 8:26 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles


  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

Other related posts: