[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:26:20 +0100 (BST)
"As we are discussing angular displacement here on earth , the displacement
would be the same if the star was at infinity, or if it was on a canvas just a
few light years away."
No, it wouldn't. Polaris describes a small circle because the viewing angle
half way about the World's rotation [sic] is different to that at full rotation
[sic]. We are constantly looking along a different line of sight.
Incidentally, these star trails can only be explained by a rotating universe,
rather than by a rotating World.
Neville.
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The figure I looked up was 430 light years.
Philip wrote:In a large universe, if the stars are as far away as HCs claim,
such that you no longer have a triangle, but a straight line, then there would
be no displacement of the star's position as a result of the World rotating.
Just as there is no movement of the celestial north pole, which can be regarded
as being at infinity.
Neville
Yet I am not so sure.. As we are discussing angular displacement here on earth
, the displacement would be the same if the star was at infinity, or if it was
on a canvas just a few light years away.
Oh dear , I do so hope we are not going to go back over the way more distance
objects appear to move backwards against the close telegraph poles outside the
speeding train.
Jush how far does helio people say the pole star is anyway.
Philip
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
