[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles & Laws of Physics
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:34:11 +1000
I'm no up to this discussion Mike, but from yours below I get it that you are
agreeing that the earths tilt is fixed as it circumnavigates its orbit around
the sun, and that the apparent movement of polaris is due solely to this
orbital movement (the base line). It seems to me, that if polaris was close,
then this observed motion would be greater than if it was at a greater
distance.
However, surely, there will come a distance where the deviation preportional to
distance would be immeasurable.
Next, if we assume a fixed earth, then the circular movement would be explained
by annular rocking or rotation of the cosmos... Producing you have to admit
purely on relativity, the same observation...
There is no way of proving one movement or the other, save as do the HC people,
to say that it is preposterous for such stellar movement over such distances to
occur.
But what sort of scientific argument is the word "preposterous"
Its a bit like saying it is unexplainable any other way, because of a fixed
belief in apparent logic of the copernicus system... But this is still a
belief, not a proof. In the same way as to you the Bible's statements are just
a belief, and not a proof.
Should not the question be. Given that we have two contrary propositions based
upon two belief systems, let us examine what scientific explanation could be
offered or investigated that could support either belief. We have to accept
here that Science is itself devided upon what is time and existence,
pertaining to what is observable.... or apparent to the observer, and what
might be the real truth of reality.
To not have an open mind, is to have a closed one. And a closed mind, never
discovers anything....
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:08 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Celestial Poles & Laws of Physics
Hi all,
Hope you all had a good Christmas and New Year.
I haven't been receiving the geocentrism mails due to my paranoid
antispam measures - hopefully sorted now.
Neville, are you yet able to admit that your "Celestial Poles" diproof
of heliocentrism is incorrect?
http://www.midclyth.supanet.com/page32.htm
The circle traced by Polaris daily in the sky as viewed from a fixed
point on earth is due only to its angular offset from the celestial
axis, not its absolute distance from earth. The amount by which the
angular offset changes over the course of a year is miniscule due to the
huge distance to Polaris compared to the distance from Earth to the Sun.
This is basics trigonometry. Whatever your beliefs may be, in that
page you misrepresent conventional science by stating it says that the
"world axis constantly tilts such as to point directly towards the
(arbitrary, in this scenario) north celestial pole." Whatever your
opinion of me, or what I have written about you, you are still
misleading people by keeping that page up.
We didn't get very far discussing your "Laws of Physics" page previsouly.
http://www.midclyth.supanet.com/page40.htm
Perhaps we could start with the basics. What is it about your result
that you find "preposterous"?
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
