[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:37:14 +1000
I think you have a POINT ja! I think perhaps that is why neville needs to
shrink the universe.
You remind me of the old camera lense. one end had a focal length of perhaps a
foot. where as the other end was called infinity , which seemed to have a focal
length of everything from 10 feet outwards to infinity.
Something perhaps no one has considered.. Neglecting all our hypotheticals
like aether, empty space is not really empty. It is sposed to be composed of
very rareified atomic Hydrogen. Empty from our perspective, but I would hazard
it would be rather dense given a parsec or two. What sort of magnifying or
diffracting effect might this have on what we see in the heavens, as those rays
of light come our way. No one can state with absolute certainty that radiation
will not be forced to curve....whether by hydrogen or magnetic fields unknown
to us.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: j a
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 12:17 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles
I used a little artistic liscence too. Think of the north star in my
arguement as the center of the circle that it produces daily. My responce is:
what is 150 million Km compared to 430 light years. If I did the math right
it's 0.000016 light years compared to 430 light years. Isn't that like
comparing 5,090 miles to a foot. How could you see a difference in something
5,090 miles away if you moved left or right by 1 foot? If you sat on a kids'
'sit and spin' and placed an object a short distance away from being directly
overhead but 5000 miles away and you watched it as you spun around you would
see it make it's small circle. Move the 'sit and spin' over 1 foot and look at
the object again as you spin and you will not see any difference from your
previous view. And your view above you has nothing to do with the view below
you. Someone on the opposite side of the earth could do the same experiment
with the same result.
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi James,
The diagram by Jack uses artistic licence to exaggerate the effect.
Polaris is not due north, but slightly offset. It is not so far away that we
do not detect the fact that it describes a circle daily. If we detect that on a
World with a 6,300 km radius, how much more would we detect it during the
course of one year - which is effectively on a World with a 150,000,000 km
radius?
Also, the effect on the south celestial pole would be empasized by the tilt
of the axis (the "ecliptic") and by the necessary wobble in the heliocentric
myth.
Neville.
j a wrote:
Well I just wrote this long diatribe on why I think the "Proof of
Heliocentric incorrectness 3" is flawed and I lost the draft. Maybe someone
didn't want me to send it. I'll test that with one more attempt.
After reading the Proof and thinking how could anyone not see the logic in
this arguement, I noticed that the Diagram included showed an earth that was
summer in the nothern hemisphere all year long. So I wondered how the
HelioCentric model would work if I corrected the "wobble" missing from the
diagram. At winter solstice the North pole should point 77 degrees up from the
plane of orbit (pointing toward the sun) and at winter solstice would be 103
degrees. Now it would seem that the north pole would never (or maybe 1 or twice
a year) point at the north star. So I looked up what the helio's had to say.
Take two points (where earth is in space at two different locations half a year
apart) and then draw a triangle with the third point being the North Star. Now
push the north star further away and the triangle narrows. Push it far enough
away and the triangle gets hard to draw, it starts to look like a like a line.
With the distance that conventional science gives for the north
star,
there is no way to differentiate the view of the north star at any point of
the year and the same reasoning will hold true for the area that the south pole
points at.
If you take the diagram in the proof and make the same triangle and then push
the north star far enough away you will get the same result: a straight line.
And you can extend the line through the south pole and far out into space and
then still do the same exercise - you can still get a straight line.
I am not attacking Geocentrism (which explains what we see also, but without
the need for such large distances) just the proof.
I think another thing that supports geocentrism and not HelioCentrism is the
earth's wobble which so completely matches one year. Why not a complete wobble
matching some fraction of a year? Which is more probable given the heliocentric
view?
I look forward to everyone's replies
James...
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
Other related posts:
