[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Thank you Phillip. It would seem that the proof I'm questioning only proves
it's point if the universe is small but not if the universe is large. Since
Heliocentrists think the universe is large, therefore the proof is not valid
against HC.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I think you have a POINT ja! I think perhaps
that is why neville needs to shrink the universe.
You remind me of the old camera lense. one end had a focal length of perhaps a
foot. where as the other end was called infinity , which seemed to have a focal
length of everything from 10 feet outwards to infinity.
Something perhaps no one has considered.. Neglecting all our hypotheticals like
aether, empty space is not really empty. It is sposed to be composed of very
rareified atomic Hydrogen. Empty from our perspective, but I would hazard it
would be rather dense given a parsec or two. What sort of magnifying or
diffracting effect might this have on what we see in the heavens, as those rays
of light come our way. No one can state with absolute certainty that radiation
will not be forced to curve....whether by hydrogen or magnetic fields unknown
to us.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:17 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
I used a little artistic liscence too. Think of the north star in my arguement
as the center of the circle that it produces daily. My responce is: what is 150
million Km compared to 430 light years. If I did the math right it's 0.000016
light years compared to 430 light years. Isn't that like comparing 5,090 miles
to a foot. How could you see a difference in something 5,090 miles away if you
moved left or right by 1 foot? If you sat on a kids' 'sit and spin' and placed
an object a short distance away from being directly overhead but 5000 miles
away and you watched it as you spun around you would see it make it's small
circle. Move the 'sit and spin' over 1 foot and look at the object again as you
spin and you will not see any difference from your previous view. And your view
above you has nothing to do with the view below you. Someone on the opposite
side of the earth could do the same experiment with the same result.
"Dr. Neville Jones" wrote: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 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 nort
h
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
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
Other related posts:
