[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:59:22 +0000 (GMT)
Neville J
If I may butt in here -- I don't believe ANY heliocentrist has EVER said that
the Earth rotates simultaneously on two axes. And I'm not aware that
helicentric theory adopts any position which would require it. Explanation?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 29 October, 2007 6:40:33 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
Dear Philip,
In geocentrism the celestial sphere is not imaginary but real.
The ecliptic is a circle. A circle that is drawn on the celestial sphere, just
like the circle which is the celestial equator is drawn around the sphere, but
the ecliptic is inclined to the equator.
I know you Aussies can't play football ("soccer" for our American cousins), but
take a football and hold it between one finger of each hand.
You could imagine the ball rotating about an axis that joins these two fingers,
right?
Position your fingers on either end of a different axis through the ball and
you could imagine the ball rotating about this axis, right?
The heliocentric system requires just such a rotation about two axes
simultaneously. The geocentric system requires rotation about only one. By use
of star trails we can determine which model is wrong. (I was careful to say
which one was wrong, rather than which one was correct.) This is why Steven and
I are laying claim to the heliocentricity proof reward, since disproof is a
definite form of proof.
I hope that you have a happy happy hour!
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:42:39 +1000
Please read the updated Celestial Poles page (with 2 new diagrams and updated
text) and re-watch the video.
Neville..
Well yes, I will.. I was dealing only with the imaginary celestial pole of an
imaginary celestial sphere. ..
So now I have to aply my logic to the ecliptic
But I'm having difficulty with what you mean by ecliptic pole.
wiki says,
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky, as it
appears to move in the sky in relation to the stars, this apparent path aligns
with the planets throughout the course of the year. More accurately, it is the
intersection of the celestial sphere with the ecliptic plane, which is the
geometric plane containing the mean orbit of the Earth around the Sun. It
should be distinguished from the invariable ecliptic plane, which is the vector
sum of the angular momenta of all planetary orbital planes, to which Jupiter is
the main contributor.
The name ecliptic is derived from being the place where eclipses occur."
You gotta admit, at least it is to me, a rather difficult definition to
visualise. I am graphically disabled. This whole article gives me no
picture..It seems to define the ecliptic as a circle....ie
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky, as it
appears to move in the sky in relation to the stars, this apparent path aligns
with the planets throughout the course of the year.
and I would say it is a path around the earth geocentrically. daily...
But the sun does not move... heliocentrically it is fixed with the stars.
There is no mention of ecliptic poles???
I could get no further with your site either, but maybe as you say it is
upgraded.
oh my......I'll have to put this into my happy hour.. Come to think of it
thats four hours away... I'll start now.. my happy hour of course.
Philip .
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
