[geocentrism] Re: Fwd: Star trails
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:38:07 -0800 (PST)
Nevile,....Roberts comments here on parallax are a more detailed braekdown of
the comments i made back in sep on star trails and Paralax....Robert nails
pretty good......
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/09-2007/msg00284.html
-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
................................
but the point about parallax would give us a independent variable for
understanding what does and could not cause parallax in the background
stars.....if no wobble then there would have to be some other perhaps as
suggested before intrinsic motion to the stars..that expiation would no longer
be "convenient" since the proof of no rotation around the secondary north
celestial axis is independent of the whole parallax issue, thus the issue of
convenience or coincident is made moot. But now we know what does not cause
parallax in the most distance stars....and in either case it cant be due to the
earth going around the sun nor can it be due to a wobble of the stars around a
centered earth.(inserted here for clarification " the Modified tyconican
model")..we can isolate any potential wobble to just the sun and the planetary
system....i think this is significant.
I do not follow what it is that you are trying to say. Let me think about
this.
Neville
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I have received privately a well-considered piece by Dr. Bennett, which I think
should be shared with you because of its relevance to our discussions.
Although I do not usually post things on the forum without our being able to
respond to the author directly and publicly, yet this is an exception.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
Robert Bennett wrote: Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 18:44:58 -0500
Neville,
On your forum you asked:
?.
Should you see the same sort of star trails?
??..
Robert B, where are you when we need you?
Sounds just like my wife!
Let?s review the HC & GC views.
HC
says the stars are all considered fixed, inc. the Sun. They all have actual
motions in space, but are too far distant for their small radial and proper
motions to be noted w/o professional equipment.
The star trails produced by the earth?s rotation about the N-S poles would
all be circles with sidereal day periods ?. If the cosmos were geocentric.
The earth?s revolution in solar orbit produces an additional seasonal N-S shift
(due to the 230 axial tilt) in the trails of nearby cosmic objects in the solar
system.
The distant stars in the Milky Way move N-S annually , just as the Sun and
planets do, but their angle of oscillation is not 23 degrees, but millions of
times smaller: their angle is inversely proportional to their distance. For
stars in near space, the annual shift is of the order of mas ? milli arc secs.
This of course is stellar parallax, visible only to astronomers. One stellar
parallax is visible and obvious? the Sun?s.
So you are correct, Neville, that the E-W star trails should be influenced by
the earth?s annual revolution, but only the Sun?s modified star trail is
visible to the unaided eye.
GWW shows that parallax measures motion relative to a reference point or
line, which is assumed to be at rest. Parallax can?t be used to establish
absolute motion, because of the fixed reference point assumption. The MS
claims - that parallax proves HC - are arguing in a circle, assuming true what
is to be proven.
HC cosmic motions are never actual, but only appearances due to the earth?s
rotation and revolution. We see nothing as it is!
GC
says all the celestial motions are as observed ? without correction - and
caused by the invisible firmament, composed of a hierarchy of rotating and
inflowing aether vortices. All objects are in the sidereal vortex, but local
whirlpools cause clustering to form binary pairs, star clusters and galaxies?.
and the solar system vortex, centered on Sol. All local gravity and inertial
fields can be explained as a local aether vortex. The Sun and Moon are in the
earth?s vortex, but the stars have two options within the neoTychonian model.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->The stars can be centered on the
Sun (Scripture neither supports nor denies this) , explaining the observed
stellar parallax as due to the Sun?s orbit of the earth. In both GC and HC,
then, parallax is due to the offset of the observer from the center of stellar
rotation by 1 AU.
or
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->The stars can be centered on
earth, and the individual parallaxes are attributed to the specific aether
vortex of each star (He knows them all by name).
Note that parallax is used in HC to determine stellar distances. If aether is
causing parallax, then stellar distance is independent of parallax angle, and
MS doesn?t know the near star distances. Also note that MS can?t say that
parallax determines distance unless they can show that distance variation is
the only possible cause for parallax.
Other related posts: