[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:56:51 -0800

Jack,

Ahhh. I think what Steven was trying to convey was a 'what-if' the heliocentrists tried to explain it by constant alignment of one pole (you did a 3D diagram for me once along those lines I remember). However, we have no evidence that this has been suggested by the secular community, so we ought not to describe it as a fudge factor.

Fudge factors do exist all over the shop, yes, but I am not aware at the moment that this has been put forward.

Apologies for any confusion.

Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:25:35 -0000

Dear Neville,
Here is a quote from one of Steven's earlier e-mails. It is the 'additional component of motion' that Steven mentions below that I was referring to as a 'fudge' factor.
 
Jack
 
'over a period of twelve months. This, too, is rotational movement, where the period of rotation is one year and the orbital radius is one astronomical unit.

But the problem with this is, if the Earth is always keeping aligned with the Northern celestial pole, then it cannot at the same time stay aligned at the same time with the Southern celestial pole. Another way to imagine this problem is this:How does heliocentrism account for this? A peculiar additional component of motion has to be attached to the Earth in order to satisfy the requirement of accounting for what we actually see

Other related posts: