[geocentrism] Challenge Jack Lewis
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:20:08 +1000
Dear Phil,
Check out George Airey's water filled telescope. Since light was supposed to
travel 1.5 times slower in water the aberration of the stars should have
produced ellipses 1.5 times larger. They didn't and so aberration was
discounted as evidence for the Earth orbit round the Sun.
Jack Lewis
Yes I get it now Jack, hence the time it took for my response. But from the
data I have gotten so far, there is nothing under aberration that connects
it with the speed of the object or the observer alone, but with both. The
few universities articles I have found so far are on different planets.
Still looking. One things seems to be certain though, it is all a matter of
relativity. So far this is how it relates to our own debate, according as to
how I get it in my own simple words.
Aberration (optical) is the distortion of a view of a moving object or
moving observer in the camera of an observer, caused by the following. The
different angles of observation of different parts of the object/s being
viewed. Call this the frame of view. The more oblique the angle, say to the
left hand star, the greater is the time delay for that part of the picture
to arrive at the plate, than from the star near it at right angles. This
would result in no distortion if the picture frame had nothing moving or
changing . But if the object or observer is moving causing varying angles of
view, the object will be distorted in size. If it was a comparison of two
stars in the frame of view for example, their relative positions would be
distorted to appear closer or further apart than they actually were at a
particular time because of the different time lapse for each part viewed. So
far I have found nothing in this to confirm Alans statement that the
peripheral speed at the rim being greater has anything to do with it in a
geocentric model, as the relative positions on an observers /retina/plate
would remain constant to the radial speed. However parallax would/ could
have an effect which observation would indeed be affected by distance to the
rim. I think we have to concede there is relative movement between the earth
and the cosmos which is consistent with annular orbit either of the earth or
the sun. Notice I said relative motion. This has nothing to do with Alans
claim about linear speed/aberration, which proved nothing in support of a
moving earth that cannot just as easily be supported by a moving cosmos.
It seems necessary, to explain the phenomenon of aberration, and also the
doppler effect observed and alleged to be due to the annular orbit of the
earth, that in addition to a rotating cosmos every 24 hours, it would also
be necessary for it (cosmos) to be gyrating every 24 hours at the angle of
inclination given to the earth. This by the way is a natural phenomenon in
rotating masses if unbalanced either in mass distribution or gravitational
force. They have the earth doing it!
This would explain all the obdervation/mechanics of a sun centred earth
orbit, and the seasons. etc.
And no doubt, Alan may call it pseudo science mumbo jumbo if he likes.
Philip
If any man among you seem to be wise in this world, let him become a fool,
that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2004 2:17 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge
Any body know what
> the speed of light is through glass or water? Pity we cant post graphics.
> Fowler shows a whammy for thinking about. me anyway.
>
> Phil.
>
>
Other related posts:
