[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:42:39 +1000
Please read the updated Celestial Poles page (with 2 new diagrams and updated
text) and re-watch the video.
Neville..
Well yes, I will.. I was dealing only with the imaginary celestial pole of an
imaginary celestial sphere. ..
So now I have to aply my logic to the ecliptic
But I'm having difficulty with what you mean by ecliptic pole.
wiki says,
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky, as it
appears to move in the sky in relation to the stars, this apparent path aligns
with the planets throughout the course of the year. More accurately, it is the
intersection of the celestial sphere with the ecliptic plane, which is the
geometric plane containing the mean orbit of the Earth around the Sun. It
should be distinguished from the invariable ecliptic plane, which is the vector
sum of the angular momenta of all planetary orbital planes, to which Jupiter is
the main contributor.
The name ecliptic is derived from being the place where eclipses occur."
You gotta admit, at least it is to me, a rather difficult definition to
visualise. I am graphically disabled. This whole article gives me no
picture..It seems to define the ecliptic as a circle....ie
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky, as it
appears to move in the sky in relation to the stars, this apparent path aligns
with the planets throughout the course of the year.
and I would say it is a path around the earth geocentrically. daily...
But the sun does not move... heliocentrically it is fixed with the stars.
There is no mention of ecliptic poles???
I could get no further with your site either, but maybe as you say it is
upgraded.
oh my......I'll have to put this into my happy hour.. Come to think of it
thats four hours away... I'll start now.. my happy hour of course.
Philip .
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
All,
Oh dear, oh dear. Has no one but Paul been reading my earlier posts. I told
you clearly that parallax has nothing to do with this argument. And to forget
about Polaris. We have to allow the heliocentrists their massive distances, but
it really does not matter!
Paul sees it, and has done for a while. My guess is that many of the silent
ones have seen it, too, but without any comments it is difficult to tell.
Real or apparent, star trails are a consequence of rotation about an axis
over a certain period. There is no doubt at all about this.
The question, in its simplest terms, is: Is there rotation of stars about the
north ecliptic pole and south ecliptic pole over one tropical year, or is there
not?
Please read the updated Celestial Poles page (with 2 new diagrams and updated
text) and re-watch the video.
This is very important and EVERYONEs contribution would be appreciated.
I will not allow such an important point to be dismissed out of hand, because
if I do then there will be no purpose in continuing this forum. Steven and I
would simply be wasting our time and energy.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:11:50 +1000
Re this thread, and Regner's question, I have to withdraw my previous
statement that observations of the rotations of the North or South stars or any
stars for that matter, are evidence of support for geocentrism.
One would have to considerably reduce the alleged and accepted distances
these stars are from the solar system, for this hypotheses to have any value. I
see no evidence that would convince me that these distances are wrong.
I apologise for any distraction I caused. It was fun though, as I was
forced to get with the facts, which I now want to forget.
I continue to hold to my original stated position in support of
geocentrism, namely that the laws of Newton hold true but are incomplete
without the effect of an aether being included. Therefore I do not have any
facts as such, but merely a hypotheses , in support of geocentrism.
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date: 28/10/2007
1:58 PM
Other related posts:
