[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
Hey everybody,
I got way behind on the emails and has taken me awhile to get caught up.
Looks like we are in really exciting territory here. Let me restate this
"proof" as I understand it.
If A-centricity is true then the nightly rotation of earth produces the star
trails we have all seen. If Geo-centricity is true then the nightly rotation of
the stars produces the star trails. There is no way to pick between the two,
the nightly star trails do not tell us which centricity is true.
If A-centricity is true than there should be a star trail produced by the
annual rotaton of earth about the sun. If Geo-centricity is true than there
would be no annual start trail (unless there was a yearly movement of the stars
also). The Annual A-centric star trail would be different from the nightly,
because the axis of rotation is ~23 degrees in another direction, such that
polaris, instead of being right next to the axis (in the nightly circle) is ~23
degrees from the annual axis and would produce a larger circle, instead of the
nightly small circle.
So if Polaris does not produce a large annual star trail (corresponding to
being ~23 degrees from the axis), than A-centrism is false.
It has been stated that this annual star trail does not exist. Has anyone
recorded an annual star trail??? I want to see the picture! If we superimposed
2 nightly star trail photos from 6 months apart (erase all circles except
polaris for simplicity) we should see the center of the two nightly circles of
polaris ~23 degrees apart, if they are not, then we have our proof positive of
the falsity of A-centrism.
JA
PS. Paul, don't let your excitement over this cause you to forget our other
topic were I am awaiting your comments. No hurry, just reminding you.
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings All
There are now so many inputs to this argument, so many inadequately defined
concepts embellished with irrelevancies, inaccuracies, misunderstandings and
untruths, that to codify them all and address them all, would be a major task
not really addressable in one overnight session at the keyboard and certainly
not by me.The one thing that has been determined unequivocally is that it is
not easy to visualise three dimensional space populated by moving bodies,
especially if you have a strong mindset in some particular direction. We need
to restate the case in simple terms.
I had a flash when reading this post in the same session with 28 others and
it is the combination of three separate items. The first was the Elmendorf
drawing which I have used here with modifications; the second was Neville's
comment which I've highlighted below: and the third was Philip's comment which
I have cut and pasted here ...Only if the earth could be stopped rotating for a
year...
Refer please to the attached illustration. The top of the drawing -- Fig 1 --
is the original with additions in red.
Explanation. When Neville says "Rotate the paper through 23.5 degrees..." it
struck me how to explain what I have been trying to get through to you guys off
and on now for 18 months -- when you rotate the paper, you also rotate the
poles! If you want to record annual rotation about the ecliptic axis, you need
to rotate (through 23.5 degrees) the axis of rotation only (as shown in Fig 2)
and leave the universe where it is.
Next problem, the rotation of the Earth is clouding the issue, so Philip,
cutting through the Gordian Knot, simply stops the Earth rotating. With that
out of the way, we can now concentrate on the revolution (vs rotation) about
the ecliptic axis. Well we can't actually stop the rotation altogether or there
will be no star trails -- we still need that one rotation per revolution (
which is the difference between solar days and sidereal days).
Now if we take one exposure per day, then who can doubt that at the end of
one year we will have a photograph with circles -- one per star -- each
consisting of 365 dots.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October, 2007 12:23:14 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Right ascension and declination
All,
Look at the attached image.
You are on the sphere and the stars are fixed.
Rotate the sphere in your mind. Consider the star trails you would observe.
Now rotate the paper through 23.5 degrees and rotate the sphere in your mind
again, but this time more slowly.
Should you see the same sort of star trails?
But there is no rotation about the ecliptic poles. There can't be, because the
ecliptic poles are just like ordinary star positions on the celestial sphere.
If there was such rotation, then the right ascension and declination coordinate
system for stars would not work (as Allen has already stated).
Therefore the World does not orbit the Sun. Therefore heliocentrism is wrong.
Therefore acentrism is wrong. Therefore the World does not rotate diurnally.
Regner, your comments?
Martin, your comments?
Robert, your comments?
Carl, your comments?
Robert B, where are you when we need you?
...
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
---------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week.
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
