[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:12:45 +1000

Once again Steven, Paul is getting posts that I do not get. Freelists must be 
short on money or something. 

No matter, Pauls post gets it back on the merrygo round and I can come in here. 

Paul , Apart  from it is difficult to read grey on white, are you too poor to 
buy ink? I cannot follow your reasoning..  So nevertheless I'll try..  But 
first up, 

MAY WE ALL THEN ACCEPT THAT THE OBSERVERTORIES AGREE WITH STEVEN, AND NO SUCH 
ROTATION OF THE STARS IS OBSERVED  ANNUALLY PROPORTIONALLY TO THAT OBSERVED DUE 
TO THE DAILY ROTATION OF THE EARTH. 

I WILL CHECK MY LOCAL OBSERVATORY CHAP AND ASK HIM FOR VERIFICATION 

In the heliocentric model, when the earth spins over 24 hours. a star over the 
North and one over the South will print a circle over 24 hours whose diameter 
is related to the angle it is offset from the axis of rotation and the relative 
position of the observer. If these conditions are equal for the N and S 
observations, lets assume they are, then equal circles will be printed, in 
synchronism , and such will present a cylinder, which I think is what Paul was 
referring to. 

Print means on a photographic plate. 

Note that this printing in synchronism is important, as from my viewpoint, this 
dispells any annual wobble or precession, being used to discount or negate any 
increase in the circle diameter that must be printed during the observers trip 
around the 190 million mile diameter earths orbit of the sun. If there were any 
such wobble, the effect on the north print would be 180degrees out of 
synchronism with that of the simultaneous print of the South view. 

For the graphically disabled, to assist in picturing this consider a ball 
suspended between two fixed points above and below by elastic bands. Now give 
the ball a small circular motion. The elastic bands wil show equal and 
synchronised angles of the deviation or circle being printed. 

Now give the ball a much larger sweep, a foot or so. Equivalent to 
circumnavigating the sun. .  It will become obvious, the observer on the ball 
must see a much bigger circle or deviation angle in one revolution. As the ball 
maintains the same orientation. 
And the views from both poles will be synchronised and equal. 

If the ball were to be tilted in a precession to neutralise the deviation angle 
of view for the N pole, such would obviously have the opposite effect, and 
increase the angle of view for the south pole. 

Philip. 



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:51 PM
  Subject: (no subject)


  re:Steven's points.

  From Steven Jones Thu Oct 25 05:56:41 2007

  Quoting Philip M quoting Steven J ... 4. No observed yearly motion of stars 
around ecliptic N/S-poles ...

  Steven J ... It's true, no observed motion to match this criteria is observed 
...

  I don't think you responded to my challenge on this matter in my post -

  Supplementary to "...supported by facts?" From Paul Deema Thu Oct 18 19:59:07 
2007

  (In part).

  Let me explain about the Heliocentric position.

  One. The Earth rotates on an axis once per sidereal day with its North Pole 
pointing to Polaris (give or take a degree) and its South Pole pointing to 
Sigma Octantus (give or take a degree) the North and South Celestial Pole stars 
respectively.

  Two. The Earth revolves around the Sun at a distance of one AU (give or take 
a million or two miles). As a consequence, the volume defined by the Earth's 
axis on this annual journey is a cylinder -- not a cone. Because of the ratio 
of one AU to the distance to the stars, the apparent angular change to these 
pole stars is trivial and certainly less than one mas. This in fact is the 
phenomenon of parallax.

  Three. The best way to envisage rotation about the Ecliptic Poles is to 
replace the Earth with a long flat narrow object oriented in the plane of the 
Ecliptic, pivotted at the Sun and with an observation point at the end at one 
AU distance. (This gets rid of the necessity of mentally struggling with the 
Earth's axial inclination to the plane of the Ecliptic which seems to be such a 
problem in the minds of Geocentrists, but if necessary, a mechanism to actually 
resolve this difficulty can be explained). If we mount a camera at this 
observation point and pointing up, it will be pointing at the (for convention) 
North Ecliptic Pole. Now if we start this construct rotating at the same rate 
as the Earth revolves and we open the shutter for a short period once per mean 
solar day (equates to midnight on the Earth) for 365 exposures of the single 
frame, then at the end of one year, we will have a photograph of many stars in 
the form of concentric circles each composed of 365 dots and centred on the 
North Ecliptic Pole. Voila!

  Please -- demonstrate the weakness in my argument.

  Paul D


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it 
now. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007 
2:31 PM

Other related posts: