Paul,

Let's have another go.

Let's assume that there are two models - geocentric and heliocentric (where 'geocentric' is to be taken as absolutely no movement of the World).

We see the stars go around daily. We see the Sun go around daily.

Geocentric - the stars go around because the stars go around, and the Sun goes around because the Sun goes around.

Heliocentric - the stars  appear to go around because the World moves, and the Sun appears to go around because the World moves.

In the heliocentric model, the stars are fixed and the Sun is fixed. Thus, these two motions of the World can be regarded as being with respect to the fixed background stars. I.e., there are two distinct motions of the World with respect to the background stars. Because the rotation axes are not coincident, we can test both models predictions against actual observation.

There is a north celestial pole and there is a north ecliptic pole. Both are at infinity in the acentric heliocentric case. I point a camera at the north celestial pole and open the shutter for an hour. I get sections of circular star trails. Since the stars are so far away in the heliocentric idea, then it is only necessary to point the camera along a line of sight which is parallel to the celestial polar axis. The World/camera combination rotating produces the circular star trails on the film emulsion.

I point the camera at the north ecliptic pole. This should also be a fixed point in the night sky if the heliocentric model is correct. Note again, that I only have to have the camera's line of sight parallel to the ecliptic polar axis, i.e., offset at 23.44 degrees to the plane of the equator. Now I do some time lapse over many days and what do I see?

The answer is that on the first night I get an image like the sections of star trails shown in Celestial Poles Fig. 1 and on the second night I get another bit of the same circular trails. If I take the second exposure one sidereal day after the first exposure, then I would get exactly the same arcs. I must do, because each sidereal day the stars are in the same place. Day after day. But if the World were orbiting the Sun, then the star field would slowly rotate about the north and south ecliptic poles also.

What you are getting confused about is that you need to track the ecliptic pole by way of the camera mount, but this is no big deal. What I am saying is that the north and south ecliptic poles are just like star positions. It is no problem locking on stars and it would thus be no problem locking onto the ecliptic pole. If there is rotation about the ecliptic pole, then I'm sure Dr. Trampedach would have shown us some evidence by now, but he seems very silent.

To demonstrate your point, you have to provide me with a constellation which rotates about 360 degrees over the course of a year. But there is none.

If the stars were rotating about the north ecliptic pole, then they would not remain fixed as they do to another axis of rotation.

The stars do not rotate, or appear to rotate, about any other location in the 'fixed' background star field, other than the north and south celestial poles.

Geocentrism predicts this, since there is one component of stellar movement, whether real or apparent.

Heliocentrism falls flat on its face, because it predicts two components of stellar movement, when only one is observed.

Neville

Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click. Visit www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!