Great diagram. An important point, in order to ascertain whether the star trails are there or not the camera should take an exposure every 23h 56m which is a complete rotation of the Earth, otherwise if 24h were taken then since the Earth has moved 4m a trail will be seen which is simply attributed to the "spin" of the "planet". We are only concerned if Earths "orbit" will trace star trails also, and since it doesn't we have therefore found a major flaw in heliocentrism/acentrism.
Happy thinking! Steven. Allen Daves wrote:
Appearently you missed the diagraim i gave to Philip a few days ago this demonstrates the two axis in the heliocentric model.. i renamed it 2 axis of rotaion*/Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote: Neville J If I may butt in here -- I don't believe ANY heliocentrist has EVER said that the Earth rotates simultaneously on two axes. And I'm not aware that helicentric theory adopts any position which would require it. Explanation? Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, 29 October, 2007 6:40:33 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 www.GeocentricUniverse.com <http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/> -----Original Message----- *From:* pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx *Sent:* 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 imaginarycelestial 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 outin 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere> with the *ecliptic plane*, which is the geometric plane <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28mathematics%29> containing the mean orbit <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit> of the Earth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth> around the Sun <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun>. It should be distinguished from the invariable ecliptic plane <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariable_plane>, which is the vector sum of the angular momenta <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum> of all planetary orbital planes, to which Jupiter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_%28planet%29> is the main contributor. The name ecliptic is derived from being the place where eclipses <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 tothink of it thats four hours away... I'll start now.. my happy hour of course. Philip . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now <http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/default_all/storage/*http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html>. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
