[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:22:53 +1000
But they are different axes in the heliocentric model, separated by almost 23.5
degrees.
Regards,
Neville
Well thanks Neville. Why is it that I can always understand and follow your
posts, and get blinded and dizzy with many others? Let me try to explain my
Modus O.
Even though we are trying show the flaw in HC, I always have in mind the GC
perspective, because it is the reality.
Hence I have a problem when people talk about projecting two axis of rotation
when I only project one axis. Originally I called the celestial axis imaginary,
because Wiki said so, not because I believed it. In GC the celestial sphere is
real and it rotates around the earths axis.
Therefore in GC I would call this axis real, and is extended or projected in a
real celestial sphere. The world either rotates on this axis, HC or the stars
do.. GC..
In HC, I see an earth moving around the celestial sphere with an orbit that has
an offset angle to the earths celestial or polar axis.
In other words, I ignore the tilt terminology, which is an invention of the HC
people to justify the seasons. Instead I call it an OFFSET planetary orbit.
The geometric axis at right angles to this orbit is just an imaginary line.
All the other planets have similar, which vary in degrees around the average
ecliptic axis for the solar system, of which Jupiter is the main contributer.
"The ecliptic plane should be distinguished from the invariable ecliptic plane,
which is perpendicular to the vector sum of the angular momenta of all
planetary orbital planes, to which Jupiter is the main contributor. The present
ecliptic plane is inclined to the invariable ecliptic plane by about 1.5°."
That the earths ecliptic orbit (note not ecliptic axis), that the ecliptic
orbit is not at rightangles to the earths axis is not relevant to my way of
thinking. The planet is orbiting the celestial axis at a 23 degree angle off
the horizontal. If there were spokes and a real axel such could not
happen...but spokes and axels are imaginary..
Also for HC one would need to place a parallel line to the celestial axis
through the sun to accomodate an orbiting earth in this celestial frame, and
call it the axis. But why complicate things. except someone might bring it
up...
Finally then, I am only concerned with observing the fixed star trails as
observed from from a world looking at the celestial poles, that moves annually
in an orbit at an inclination from the horizontal in the HC system. If I was on
Mars I'd have to do the same, but a different offset orbit angle.
This inclined orbit does mean that the observer moves closer and further away
from the celestial pole over the period of a year, but how negligible is that
distance, given the distance we are observing. Likewise we can ignore the
slightly smaller diameter of orbital observation presented by this angle of
rotation .
I repeat, what I said earlier. If the camera could be rotated in reverse
rotation to neutralise the daily star trails, then if HC was true, an annual
trail of the same star, Polaris, would still be produced.
I know this is wordy, but it is the best I can do without a diagram. In any
case it would only be a crooked cross.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
Philip,
You are oh-so close when you ask, "wouldn't an annual rotation recorded over
a year be indistinguishable from that recorded over a day, and thus
indeterminate."
The answer is, "yes, it would, if both effects were being produced about the
same axis."
But they are different axes in the heliocentric model, separated by almost
23.5 degrees.
What we see is perfectly explained by the geocentric system, but cannot be
explained with the heliocentric (and therefore acentric) system.
Regards,
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at
www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.16/1102 - Release Date: 31/10/2007
4:38 PM
Other related posts:
