[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Celestial poles and Badastronomy
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 03:09:29 +0100
Dr. Neville Jones wrote:
> ******** There are several flaws in your simple analogy.
I've thought of a much better analogy, in fact I think I can turn this
into an experiment :)
Equipment:
- 1 field inclined at 23.5 degrees.
- 2 digital cameras (not really necessary but they help)
- 1 star a few degrees off from directly above the field
Setup:
- Mark the centre of the field. This represent the sun.
- Mark a circle (or elipse if you prefer) around the centre. The radius
of this circle models the distance between the earth and sun. The
circle models earth's orbit.
- Mark the exact centre of the cameras' LCD viewfinders so that when you
point the camera directly at an object the mark appears over the object
on the LCD.
- Place one camera on the ground far enough outside the marked circle to
capture it all and pointing directly at the central mark in such a way
that the incline of the field is at right angles to the direction it is
pointing.
The incline of the field models the incline of the of earth's rotatain
relative to its orbit around the sun.
Looking vertically straight up models looking straight up from the
celestial north pole.
The star a few degrees off from the vertical models Polaris.
Experiment One:
This models the daily apparent motion of Polaris about the celestial
north pole.
- Stand somewhere on the marked circle and point your camera vertically
straight up. Notice the distance between the star a few degrees off
from the vertical and the central mark on your LCD.
- Now spin on the spot keeping the camera pointing vertically. When you
play it back you will notice that the star describes a circle about the
central mark on the LCD viewfinder.
For each 360 you complete, the star descibes a complete circle about the
central mark on the LCD, the radius of this circle is dependant only on
the angle made between the star, you, and the vertical you're pointing
the camera at, it is completely unrelated to the star's distance.
Experiment Two:
This models the apparent motion of Polaris due to our yearly orbit
around the sun (parallax).
- While facing the same direction horizontally, walk around the circle
while pointing the camera vertically straight up. Notice that starting
from where you did in experiment one, the star is still the same
distance from the central point on the LCD as in the first expirement.
- When you play it back (or just watch the LCD as you walk) measure the
amount by which the star moves relative to the central mark on the LCD -
you will probably not detect any motion.
You would need to have a very steady hand and a very high resolution
camera to detect any motion of a star only a few miles away if your
circle was no more than say 100 metres across. The distance from you to
the star is directly related to amount by which it moves on the LCD
(exactly analogous to telegraph poles along the side of the road wizzing
by while distant moutains don't).
Experiment Three:
This models earth's rotation and motion about the sun as given by
conventional physics and the resulting apparent motion of Polaris
relative to the celestial north pole.
- Point your camera vertically
- Spin at a rate of one revolution every 10 seconds while walking around
the circle at a rate of one cycle every 3650 seconds.
When you play this back you will see the star trace a complete circle
about the central mark on the LCD every 10 seconds but you would need a
very steady hand and a very high resolution cmera to detect any motion
of the star due to your motion about the circle. It is just a
combination of experiments 1 and 2.
Now play back what the other camera captured in experiment 3. This is
the conventional model (slightly idealized) of the earth rotating and
orbiting the sun.
Notice that precession did not feature anywhere in these experiments.
Notice, also, that the easily detectable motion in experiment one does
not depend on the distance between you and the star while the virtually
indetectalbe motion of the star in experiment 2 is completely dependant
on the distance of the star. This shows that this statement from from
http://www.midclyth.supanet.com/page32.htm is mistaken. The proof does
not demonstrate any logical flaw in the heliocentric model.
Neville Jones & Steve Jones wrote:
>Our supposed diurnal rotation about an axis is the interpretation
given >to explain the circles traced out by the stars. In other words,
the >World's alleged rotation is sufficient to give the 'illusion' that
>Polaris completes a perfect circle each sidereal day. Why, then, do we
>not see Polaris complete a far, far larger circle during the course of
>twelve months, when our movement through space, with respect to the
>'fixed' background star, Polaris, enormously exceeds that which would
>be due to our rotation about an axis? It cannot be that Polaris is so
>far away that we would not observe such an effect, for, if that were
>so, then we definitely would not get any small circle appearing as a
>result of the World's alleged spin.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
