[geocentrism] Re: Celetial Poles
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:41:02 +1000
I dont think we can have an earth wobble. Its got to be an aether or plenum +
cosmos wobble.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Celetial Poles
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...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
