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

  "Quite simple. The earth is tilted at that part of the sky. The tilt is 
maintained toward that part of the sky throughout the orbit around the sun, and 
so the star always appears in the same spot." 

   I don't recall the context and I'm not going to look it up, but here he -- 
the scientist -- is simply stating the obvious -- a star which happens to lie 
on the extended axis of rotation of a planet will indeed 'keep station'.

  Provided that star is far enough away. And they all are. If the point of 
light  on the axis had features such as a binary for example, a face, then even 
here rotation would be discernable. 

  But any star off the axis, like Polaris is for example, will show rotation if 
either the sphere rotates, or the observer rotates. 

  Proving the difference is the problem. And as well. And it is this that is 
being contested by us all. The big question. 

  Does the view of the rotation of that star vary proportionally with the 
radius of  rotation of the observer..  

  Thats the simple question. And we have to answer it here on earth. 

  I think that because of the distance we are away from the star, any 
photographed trail will have the same diameter and be in the same position 
photographed from any location on the northern hemisphere, and indeed from any 
position in the earth sun heliocentric or geocentric system . 

  As we have seen this is difficult to prove. I'm working on an experiment. 

  I leave you with something to think about. 

  Last night I looked at the moon. In a minute  I COULD HAVE DRIVEN A 20 MILE 
CIRCUIT around MY TOWN, a big enough circle proportionately, and the moon never 
moved in azmith or elevitation.  

  Philip.

Other related posts: