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