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

• From: Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:06:01 +0000

Thanks for the hint, hint! I'm knee deep in programming projects right now, but I would like to see it done. uhmm, I'm far from an expert though, if Dad does the maths and me the graphics then we should get it... I'll mention it.

```
```
If anyone else wants to see some-kind of model demonstrating it and would like to help contribute to this idea, then there is a "Make a Donation" button in the shop! (hint, hint)! :-) If this model your seeking does come to fruition, we will publish the source as open, then there can be no arguments that we have fudged anything.
```
Best Wishes,

Steven.

j a wrote:
```
```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 <mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
*To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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

```
```

```