[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Celestial poles and Badastronomy

  • From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:57:13 +0100 (BST)

Mike's comments on the celestial poles argument were (with my responses 
interleaved with ******** ):

I just read your "Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness 3 - Celestial Poles" ( 
www.midclyth.supanet.com ). I really don't understand what you're getting at 

The daily circle traced out by Polaris is pefectly well explained by the 
earth's axis of rotation not pointing directly at Polaris.

********  No one is saying that the World's "axis" points at Polaris. It would 
point, by definition, at the north celestial pole (since we are referring to 
true north, rather than magnetic north). ********

The yearly motion of the earth around the sun does not affect the direction of 
the earth's axis. It does affect the direction of Polaris from us though 
(parallax), by about .01 seconds of an arc, not detectable without fine 

Precessional movement of the earth's axis has a period of about 25,000 years 
and is certianly not "miraculously" aligning the earth's axis with Polaris in a 
yearly cycle as we move around the sun.

******** I'm not talking about the precession of the equinoxes, but the alleged 
change in axis orientation during the World's supposed 12-month orbit of the 
Sun. ********

Here's a simple analogy:

If you pass a distant mountain on a train and fix your gaze on the mountain it 
will seem to move very slowly despite your high velocity relative to it. The 
further away it is the slower it moves, that's parallax and is analogous to us 
looking at Polaris and watching its apparent slight movement over the course of 
a year.

Now turn on the spot by a few degrees all the while keeping your head and eyes 
fixed relative to your body and you see it apparently move in the opposite 
direction rather quickly (and the distant stars behind it too for that matter) 
- that's analogous to us looking at Polaris from a rotating frame of reference 
(the earth) and seeing it circle the celestial north pole daily.

******** There are several flaws in your simple analogy. If you fix your gaze 
on the distant mountain, then you will find that your head is slowly moving, 
such that your line of sight is travelling in the opposite sense to that of the 
train. If your gaze is not fixed, then the mountain will still move out of 
sight. Next, we are not fixing our gaze on Polaris, but on the north celestial 
pole, which does not move in either system. Your analogy should therefore 
concern itself not with the mountain, but with the telegraph pole which 
apprently moves relative to the mountain. Next you claim that the mountain does 
not move when you look out of the window of the carriage, but does appear to 
move when you turn on the spot, yet in the first our gaze is to be "fixed" 
relative to the mountain and in the second it is to be "fixed" relative to our 
rotating body. This is where your simple analogy really falls apart. You cannot 
fix your gaze on the object in one, but on nothing in the other,
 of course you will perceive different things.

In the "Celestial Poles" argument, the observer and his camera are ALWAYS fixed 
on the north celestial pole. If Polaris is so far away that on our journey 
around the Sun we notice only a parallax value of 0.01 arcseconds (I'm assuming 
that your figure is "correct," in the accepted system), then why, during our 
circling of the globe at our particular latitude, do we not observe something 
far less than 0.01 arcseconds each sidereal day? Remember, contrary to your 
simple analogy, we fix our eyes on exactly the same thing in both instances. 
Polaris (or the telegraph pole) either moves relative to the north celestial 
pole (or mountain), or it doesn't. It cannot move in one, but not the other - 
at least, not when they are this particular way round. ********

"You may not agree that the earth moves but your "proof" of the incorrectness 
of the heliocentric model is nothing but misunderstanding or misrepresentation."

******** I'm fairly outspoken on the website, so I can understand your use of 
the term, "misrepresentation." However, I do not seek to misrepresent anything. 


 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  

Other related posts: