[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:03:33 +1000
From Nevilles home.
The Heliocentric Model
Our supposed diurnal rotation about an axis is the interpretation given to
explain the daily motion of the Sun. As a consequence of the World's alleged
spin, we observe circles traced out by the (non-moving) stars. In other words,
although rotation of the World about an axis cannot be directly perceived,
nevertheless it can allegedly be demonstrated by this 'illusion' of star
trails. Time exposure images do clearly show concentric trails about the north
or south celestial pole, indicating a definite rotation of either the heavens
or the World about the celestial polar axis in each 24 sidereal-hour period. So
far so good. No problem.
Might I add in here that these trails apply to all stars, even the sun, and
moon, if such a lenze could be devised to have omnidirectional characteristics
from the centre of the earth, the earth rendered transparent naturally.
In the heliocentric myth, however, an additional component of motion has to be
attached to the World, in order to satisfy the requirement of accounting for
what we actually see over a period of twelve months. This, too, is rotational
movement, where the period of rotation is one year and the orbital radius is
one astronomical unit.
I am forced to assume that in this instance the observer is not central to the
axis of this anual rotation, ie the sun, but central to the globe, which is
doing the orbit.. OK..
However, if we extend the radius of this globe to one astronomical unit (which
is still negligible when compared to stellar distances in the acentric, or
no-centre, scheme) and increase the observation period to 365.25 mean solar
days, then the stars should again trace out circular paths, this time about the
ecliptic poles, if it is indeed the World that orbits the Sun annually whilst
the background stars remain fixed.
Here I have a difficulty. May I now feel secure in assuming the polar ecliptics
are, in the HC model, central to the solar system or sun. How can an observer
not central to the axis of rotation see an equivalend annual star rotation to
that observed celestially on a rotating earth. I seem to see an offset..because
our world observatory would see the stars rotating eccentrically, being off
centre from the angular rotation. In one year this should show a star trail of
an individual star for example swinging on a pivot at the edge where the
observer is.. Off set.. stars on the opposite side would do the opposite, and
some sort of petal flower like pattern would emerge. but then as I say I'm
having difficulty visualising this.
Can you correct me on the above please Neville, before I shift back into top
gear...
Please don't keep all your eggs in this basket Neville, after all you used to
keep them in the whole Bible, and you did not give up when you came to doubt
half of it..
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:
