[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:11:12 -0800

Dear Jack,

I've only just seen this offer (inbox.com has been down and I couldn't receive anything until today, when I found > 80 e-mails awaiting me).

The diagram I came up with to illustrate the point is Fig. 2 of the Celestial Poles page. In this diagram I do not state what the radius of the sphere is, nor what the rotation period is, nor what the poles and axis are. These are unimportant.

In the real (observational) world, there are two axes of rotation. Paul Deema would be "correct" (in the heliocentric meaning of the word) if these two axes coincided, but they do not. Hence the disproof of heliocentricity. Since we can see star trails about one, we must be able to see them about the other. It is EXACTLY the same method of production and irrespective of the model (geo or helio).

If you can produce a better method of displaying this, then please do so and throw it in to the group.

Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:42:53 -0000

Dear Neville,
Do you need one of my drawings to illustrate this that I can attach for everyone to see?
 
Jack
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:40 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?

Dear Philip,

In geocentrism the celestial sphere is not imaginary but real.

The ecliptic is a circle. A circle that is drawn on the celestial sphere, just like the circle which is the celestial equator is drawn around the sphere, but the ecliptic is inclined to the equator.

I know you Aussies can't play football ("soccer" for our American cousins), but take a football and hold it between one finger of each hand.

You could imagine the ball rotating about an axis that joins these two fingers, right?

Position your fingers on either end of a different axis through the ball and you could imagine the ball rotating about this axis, right?

The heliocentric system requires just such a rotation about two axes simultaneously. The geocentric system requires rotation about only one. By use of star trails we can determine which model is wrong. (I was careful to say which one was wrong, rather than which one was correct.) This is why Steven and I are laying claim to the heliocentricity proof reward, since disproof is a definite form of proof.

I hope that you have a happy happy hour!

Neville
3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Preview
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2007