[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 12:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Jack,
It is difficult to imagine what something looks like when it involves such
large distances and pre-conceived notions, but I'll tell you what I'm thinking.
When we were disussing this a year or 2 ago, I was of the opinion that the
double rotation was not a factor in star trails becuse the 2 baselines (1 au
versus earths radius) are not different enough in size compared to the star
distance. I could visualize it so easily. What I failed to know then that Ya'll
have made known to me now, is that the 2 rotations have different axis. That
being said, it should look like a spirograph. The edge (or a point) on the
nightly circle should trace out a different circle over a year. The small
nightly Polaris circle should trace out a larger annual circle, while a star
with a large nightly circle would trace out a smaller annual circle. Use your
drawing Jack, take any one of the nightly circles and roll it around the
circumference of the annual circle it touches. If you were able to
take a yearlong exposure of a single star it should look like a giant donut.
Polaris would make a skinny donut with a large hole.
Thats how I'm seeing it right now, subject to change, as I continue to try to
visualize the mechanics. I'm trying to wrap my head around this and I'm also
trying to consider whether the minor sine wave like motion that the observer
would traverse with the annual axis would make any difference or if I used a
more eliptical obit, it seems to be just beyond my brains ability.
I think we should get some computer expert (hint hint) to program this visual
effect for all to see what we should see if A-centrism be true. If only we knew
someone with programming experience with graphics and planetery motion (hint
hint). If only, if only. Is anyone aware of someone like that?
JA...
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear James,
I know I've asked this question before but I think it has either been missed
or ignored or maybe its been answered and I missed it!
Question.
If the earth did orbit the sun what would the star trails then look like?
Because we don't see any that is our reason for rejecting heliocentrism. So in
a heliocentric model what would the star trails look like?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:48 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
Paul,
I'm glad you liked the diagram. Keep looking for the flaw - If A-centrism is
true, then there must be one.
As for your 3 loud points. "1. the camera must be aligned on the axis of
the pole you are photographing; 2. the exposure must be appropriate to the
length of time required for the phenomenon to occur; and 3. the base line of
the observer has no repeat NO effect on the resulting image."
1) I see no reason why the camera must be aligned to the axis. A camera not
aligned with the nightly axis will still record the star trails. The point is,
if I took a camera and aimed it at a spot halfway between the two axis (annual
& nightly) and recorded star trails every night for a period of time; according
to your statement I would have recorded nothing, but in reality I would have
recorded the nightly trail but no annual trail, there is no reason not to
record both if in fact there is a second axis of rotation. Thats what my far
right diagram is about, a point on the nightly circle must travel the annual
circle. 2) Yes, I agree exposure time is important, but this is a practical
detail about recording data and has nothing I can see with deciding what that
data tells us. 3) I agree with this, which is why I used a base line of zero
for my drawing.
JA...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
