[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles Talk

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 06:10:55 -0800

They could be talking about one of two things. Either its real(GC)/apparent(HC) daily motion about the celestial pole, or (more likely) the precession of the whole heavens slowly over time. Either way does not affect the celestial poles argument that disproves heliocentricity.


-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 12:39:02 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles Talk

That's fine Neville. What then do astronomers mean when they talk about the pole star precessing?As I understand, it is a quick solution to some kind of problem.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles Talk


Just answering the technical questions in your post. Sorry for the delay.

The way the stars should look is almost exactly like the image shown in the lecture, with the pole being the south ecliptic pole and the time period being 1 year. Perhaps I ought to have said in the lecture that the clearest way of proving that this is not the case is the fact that the celestial pole is always in the same place. In fact, this was well known from way before the time of Kopernik, since navigation is based upon it.

As for the angle between the pole star and the World at six-monthly intervals, this is indeed extremely small, but is a parallax issue, rather than a rotation axis issue.



Free 3D Earth Screensaver - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth

Other related posts: