[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 19:00:16 +0000 (GMT)

Neville J
I'll insert a few comments in teal.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
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). OK!
We see the stars go around daily. We see the Sun go around daily. OK!
Geocentric - the stars go around because the stars go around, and the Sun goes 
around because the Sun goes around. OK!
Heliocentric - the stars appear to go around because the World moves, and the 
Sun appears to go around because the World moves. OK!
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. OK!
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. OK!
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. OK! Now I do 
some time lapse over many days and what do I see? At the moment I'm going 
quietly bonkers trying to produce illustrations of just this scenario. Back 
when we began this protracted debate, I described this process of taking -- say 
one hour -- exposures with a camera pointing straight up (looking at the 
zenith) from three locations on the equinox -- the equator, 45 deg lat same 
night and from the pole same night. The equatorial star trails will be -- 
approx -- straight parallel lines, the 45 deg lines will be large radius 
circular arcs (tighter at the top of the frame than at the bottom) and at the 
pole there will be small radius arcs but radius
 increasing towards the bottom of the frame. This is because the Z axis of the 
camera is describing a cone in the universe whose included angle is determined 
by the angle of the camera Z axis when compared with the axis of rotation. The 
North Ecliptic Pole as a destination of the camera Z axis, is just another 
point on the path to the equator.
And this is the dark cupboard into which you appear deathly afraid to look -- 
so long as the camera's Z axis is locked to the Earth's axis, the universe will 
remain exactly as you describe, but if you summon your courage and look into 
that dark cupboard -- locking your camera's Z axis to the Ecliptic Polar Axis 
-- you will see clearly the circular star trails centred on the NEP.
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 [ at the same 
time ie one solar day ] 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. And so they will for as long as you avoid looking into that dark 
cupboard.
 What you are getting confused about I don't know how many times I've told you 
this -- I am not confused. I simply view the world differently from you -- the 
way most people view the world. is that you need to track the ecliptic pole by 
way of the camera mount, but this is no big deal. Do you mean as I described in 
my 'EclipticPoles.jpg'? A standard equatorial mount and sidereal time motor 
drive won't do the job of course. 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.
Well absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Neville
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I did note your other 'simple' explanation. It looks accurate but it would take 
me too long to see if you are telling me the truth. And anyway, I would not 
expect that you would attempt to deceive me.
Paul D


      
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. 
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV. 
http://au.blogs.yahoo.com/national-bingo-night/

Other related posts: