[geocentrism] Re: an axis or not?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:35:36 +1000
Philip,
Whether you view it as abstract or not does not alter the fact that it is
relevant to both geocentric and heliocentric systems. It is as 'real' as your
horizon.
Neville
Agreed I am not doubting that Neville. But do you see my point that if I take
the orbit of the sun as a helical spring around the world, which it is from a
geocentric perspective, and if the suns orbital plane is the ecliptic, then
under such a graphical representation of a spring, the ecliptic axis and the
celestial axis are the same?
I am not trying to raise any red herring. I am not familiar with much of the
astronomy of space and the planetary movements. I'm flat out keeping the moon
in place. I'm trying to get the mechanics perspective.
I expect that all the appearances for both systems must remain the same.
Therefore if we ascribe this equinoxical movement to the sun, then for all of
the suns planets to keep the appearances of position relative to the sun and
the world, then must we not expect the whole system to likewise be taking the
same motion. Even so the canopy perhaps.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: an axis or not?
Philip,
Whether you view it as abstract or not does not alter the fact that it is
relevant to both geocentric and heliocentric systems. It is as 'real' as your
horizon.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:34:20 +1000
An ecliptic (or any ) plane to me is an arbitary geometrical statement. If
a top was spinning stable in a vertical position, then the plane of its
rotation or orbit would be in a fixed plane. But what of the same top orbiting
and precessing (gyrating)? The plane of the orbit and the plane of the spin and
thus their axes would be continuously variable.
Where would the geometrician put the axis of an unstable orbit that varied
randomly in the vertical and horizontal plane? What was true for this instant
would not be true for the next, and being random, would not be predictable.. I
repeat my assertion an ecliptic plane is an imaginary geometrical construct
used for graphic display. It has no other existence as an entity
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:42 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: an axis or not?
-----Original Message-----
From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 09:23:31 -0800 (PST)
"An Earth system model wherein the sun goes around the Earth following
the ecliptic path that is inseparable from the heliocentric model is not
required at all in the Geocentrism model... Using the 'solar system'
heliocentricity path of orbit on a Geocentrism model doesn't work because that
path is not actually part of the Geocentrism model." Marshall Hall
This is simply not true. In fact, it is primarily from a geocentric
perspective that we get the concept of the ecliptic.
N.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 13/01/2008
12:23 PM
Other related posts:
