[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Celestial poles and Badastronomy
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:51:25 +0100
Philip wrote:
> Neville, may I posit a defense, according to your model.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but Neville does not accept the establishment
> figures given to the stars distance from the earth.
>
> If the stars are very close, and not the lightyears that science tells us,
> then of course Neville 's proof would be worthy of consideration. However, I
> at this point see no reason to find for Nevilles assumed distance, but
> rather for the established figures being closer to actuality.
The proof attempts to show that the conventional heliocentric model is
inconsistent. It must therefore assume the heliocentric model for the
sake of argument and procede from there to demonstrate its
inconsistencies. I can't demonstrate that your ideas are wrong by first
assuming they are wrong.
The distance to the stars doesn't affect the logic of the argument
anyway. The reasoning was that if the pole star appears to moves by so
much daily due to the earth's rotation then it must appear to move by
so much more due to our larger yearly rotation around the sun. This
logic is wrong whatever the distance of the object. Tilt your digital
camera sideways and everything rotates on the LCD around the centre of
rotation, move it sideways and even an object as close as a distant
mountain will pass across the LCD very slowly.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
