[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:17:34 +1000
Philip asked: Does the view of the rotation of that star vary proportionally
with the radius of rotation of the observer..
Neville responded.
The answer is, "no." The stars are so far away in the heliocentric idea that
the difference in radius between R and 1AU is negligible (manifesting itself
only in tiny parallax and slightly elliptical trails as opposed to circular
trails).
Well thank you Neville.. At last in simple language we have cleared that one
up.
It is the absence of star trails about the second rotation axis over a
twelve-month period that disproves heliocentrism, not any (major) consideration
as to their shape or size.
Now it is this alone that is disputed, and needs to be proven.. On the figures
of the heliocentric star distance, isn't the proportion as you stateed "the
difference in radius between R and 1AU is negligible" still too fine for any
change in position to be detected even over one year, not that the time is
relevant?
Therefore I have to ask :
Because your answer in the first instance has been proposed and accepted, then
wouldn't an annual rotation recorded over a year be indistinguishable from that
recorded over a day, and thus indeterminate.
(manifesting itself only in tiny parallax and slightly elliptical trails as
opposed to circular trails).
Philip.
Neville.
Other related posts:
