[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:09:30 -0700 (PDT)

Since the Earth is not moving in a GS model and in the HC it is moving around 
the sun, the only way star trails could appear in a GS model is if the whole 
universe was vibrating around the earth over a period of one year with a 3% 
elliptical and a ~150 million mile radius. But there are no star trails, which 
excludes the possibility of the earth moving around the sun. As Dr Jones points 
out, if the nightly star trails are due to a ~7000 mile circle (spin) of the 
earth then the 300,000,000 mile circle that the earth makes around the sun 
should produce annual star trails that are ~42,000 thousand times larger than 
the nightly ones. If the nightly star trails are due to a say ~.0000005 of a 
degree angle between the observer and the star and that produces a star trail 
that is say ~.5 inch across (in the sky)over the course of one night then over 
the course a year it should produce one~43,000 times that size or ~21,500 
inches in dia, because the nightly circle is only ~7000 miles 
 big in
 diameter, the yearly is ~300,000,000 million miles big. How could it not be 
there? But it is not there! If ~3500 miles (Earth?s Radius)represents .0000005 
of a degree at 430lys, then the angle of the observer after moving 300,000,000 
miles away would change drastically from .0000005 of one degree to ~.214 of a 
degree from where it was before. I?m not using trig here just REAL ROUGH 
numbers off the top of my head. In any case it is a big difference. I think it 
would be good if Dr Jones could SIMM this in GU 2005. 



j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I appreciate the answers to my question, but maybe I'm dense on this one 'cause 
I don't get it. If a star gives a certain angle, then moving that star further 
away only decreases the angle we would measure. The base of our traingle, the 
width of the planet for GC or the width of orbit around the sun for HC would 
remain the same. Both distances incredibly small compared to the distance of 
that star giving the "looks more like a line than a triangle" arguement it's 

For GC the universe can be large or small and the star trails would look like 
they do but for HC the universe must be large for the star trails to look like 
they do.

So, I still don't see how this statement could be true: :"Incidentally, these 
star trails can only be explained by a rotating universe, rather than by a 
rotating World." I would like this statement to be true, but I don't see how it 
can be.


Philip wrote:
thats is what I am saying angles are angles and the further the distance the 
greater the displacement., Phul 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Allen Daves 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:33 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

Correction: This is what I meant. 

The further away the earth is from a given star the smaller the angle will be 
but the displacement of whatever that angle is will also be proportionally 

Allen Daves wrote:Both GS and HC are essentially just a mathematical coordinate 
systems for what we observe here on Earth. A method for calculating how far 
away and where something is going to be at any given time in the heavens when 
we look up. The appearance of motion is identical, It is the theoretical motion 
that gets the stars and planets to the right place at the right time that 
differs. However, at externally large distances any discrepancies in the two 
methods for achieving those positions will show up. This is due to the fact 
that a ~.0000005 of a angel at the point of origin is imperceptible to the 
observer at the point of origin, however at 430ly away it will displace ~7926 
miles. The average male is 5'6". Relatively specking the displacement of that 
angle at that distance is overwhelmingly enormous compared to the observer. The 
further away the earth is from a given star the smaller the angle will be but 
so to will the displacement of
that angle is. Basically, we as the ob
will always be microscopic compared to the displacement of the angles at those 
distances, thus we can observe this phenomena quite readily.

It is interesting to note that the HC have estimated Polaris' distance from 
Earth to be everywhere from 360 to 820 light years . The 430ly figure is from 
the Hipparchus satellite estimates.

j a wrote:"Incidentally, these star trails can only be explained by a rotating 
universe, rather than by a rotating World."

Why is this true? I thought that the appearance of motion in either HC or GC 
were the same?

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

Other related posts: