[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:47:57 -0000
Dear Paul,
Maybe you might find this helpful. In considering that the celestial poles
discussion may be confirming the fact of geocentrism instead of heliocentrism,
why not accept that through pure chance and nothing else - no suggestion of a
creator here, that the Earth just happened to become the centre of the universe
when it came into being. It's an incredible idea I know but if you are happy
to accept that chance and the randomness of bringing together inanimate
chemicals to form the most complex mechanism that man has never, with all his
ingenuity and resources, been able to duplicate - living matter, then why not
accept the same coincidence for a geocentric cosmos? It shouldn't compromise
your atheistic world view.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
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.
Other related posts:
