[geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.

  • From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:45:54 -0500

Philip,

I guess if everything were locked in a firmament of concrete and spinning
ultra rigidly, then those stars would indeed follow the sun.  But the sun
and moon do not show us a firmament that is so rigid, as solar eclipses
would happen every month at a new moon if it were.  If things were in
lockstep in the firmament, the moon would have to travel as fast around the
earth as the sun does.  But it clearly does not, as evidences by the moon
phases.

So, it would follow that the sun could make its annual double helix movement
around the earth and the stars would not necessarily keep that same pattern.

Gary


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Neil Robertson" <nroberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.


>
> >
> > That last comment said much I'm still trying. If the stars are all fixed
> > with the sun, (time relatively) then why do the stars not follow the
suns
> > annular migration from north to south? How can they remain rising in the
> > exact same spot EVERY DAY. ???
> >
> The apparent movement of the stars is a direct result of the earths
> rotation. The annual movement of the sun is caused by the tilt of the
> rotational axis of the earth which is  23.5 degrees with respect to its
> orbital plane around the sun.
>
>
> Neil
>
>


Other related posts: