[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:45:19 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:11:32 +1000

Neville said
Agreed. And as JA has stated so well, Polaris would need to describe a sizeable circle about the second axis, since it is about 23.5 degrees off the second axis.
But only if the camera is moved to a different angle of observation .ie parallel to the ecliptic axis. Correct. Nobody told us that. Just testing you. I assumed the camera angle remained parallel to the celestial axis... 
 
Which is it please? If you moved the angle of the camera off 23 degrees even the daily trail would become a larger circle .. Wouldn't it? You would get arcs as in Steven's photo on the Celestial Poles page of our web site, but these arcs are still part of the ONLY circles you're going to get - those centred on the north and south celestial poles.
 
Philip.

Neville.

Other related posts: