[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:37:01 +1000
Well Neville, I certainly was not so imprudent or arrogant as to dismiss the
point out of hand for the list. I merely thought from my point of view at that
time, that I had fully grasped what was going on, and saw no more reason to go
further with it.
I hadn't given up grappling with it.. I am still having trouble visualising
what is happening heliocentrically, and it is in this mode, that I must have a
picture, or I cannot participate or even understand Regners refutations. So I
will perservere with a question or two.
This is how I get the picture from Wiki. I will set my questions within this
text, [...thus]
Ecliptic and equator
As the rotation axis of the Earth is not perpendicular to its orbital plane,
the equatorial plane is not parallel to the ecliptic plane, but makes an angle
of about 23°26' which is known as the obliquity of the ecliptic. The
intersections of the equatorial and ecliptic plane with the celestial dome are
great circles known as the celestial equator and the ecliptic.
The intersection line "A great circle is the intersection of a sphere with a
plane going through its center. of the two planes results in two diametrically
opposite intersection points, known as the equinoxes. The equinox which the Sun
passes from south to north is known as the vernal equinox or first point of
Aries. Ecliptic longitude, usually indicated with the letter ?, is measured
from this point on 0° to 360° towards the east. Ecliptic latitude, usually
indicated with the letter ? is measured +90° to the north or -90° to the south.
The same intersection point also defines the origin of the equatorial
coordinate system, named right ascension measured from 0 to 24 hours also to
the east and usually indicated with ? or R.A., and declination, usually
indicated with ? also measured +90° to the north or -90° to the south. Simple
rotation formulas allow a conversion from ?,? to ?,? and back (see: ecliptic
coordinate system).
[With difficulty, but so far so good.. At least I now can navigate. My
question is with the next bit. ]
[edit] Ecliptic and stars
The ecliptic serves as the center of a region called the zodiac which
constitutes a band of 9° on either side. Traditionally, this region is divided
into 12 signs of 30° longitude each. By tradition, these signs are named after
12 of the 13 constellations straddling the ecliptic. The zodiac signs are very
important to many astrologers. Modern astronomers typically use other
coordinate systems today (see below).
[ from this I conclude, (which I always thought) that if I was on earth and
looked out at midnight, on a plane parallel with the ecliptic, once a month
which is 30 degrees of the earths orbit of the sun I would see one twelfth of
the 360 degrees of the cosmos around the sun. these sections are named after
signs of the zodiac. Therefore in the course of a year I will have viewed the
entire 360 degrees of space. If I took a timelapse movie over this 12 months, I
would have a moving picture of the anual rotation of the stars around the earth
and of course the sun.
Yet might I not say this annual rotation is caused by the relative movement of
the constellations, and the suns different period, rather than the earth
movement.. Same illusion, of relative motions, but an annual instead of daily.
But all of this only more deeply mystifies me as to why Neville and all claim
there is no evidence of this annual rotation at the poles If it is visible in
the zodiac region, it has to be happening in the polar regions, except a bit
more difficult to record .
If you can clear me up on this one Neville, I will continue.. sorry but your
"celestial poles" page does not clear this up for me. Maybe I need an "ecliptic
poles" page.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
All,
Oh dear, oh dear. Has no one but Paul been reading my earlier posts. I told
you clearly that parallax has nothing to do with this argument. And to forget
about Polaris. We have to allow the heliocentrists their massive distances, but
it really does not matter!
Paul sees it, and has done for a while. My guess is that many of the silent
ones have seen it, too, but without any comments it is difficult to tell.
Real or apparent, star trails are a consequence of rotation about an axis
over a certain period. There is no doubt at all about this.
The question, in its simplest terms, is: Is there rotation of stars about the
north ecliptic pole and south ecliptic pole over one tropical year, or is there
not?
Please read the updated Celestial Poles page (with 2 new diagrams and updated
text) and re-watch the video.
This is very important and EVERYONEs contribution would be appreciated.
I will not allow such an important point to be dismissed out of hand, because
if I do then there will be no purpose in continuing this forum. Steven and I
would simply be wasting our time and energy.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:11:50 +1000
Re this thread, and Regner's question, I have to withdraw my previous
statement that observations of the rotations of the North or South stars or any
stars for that matter, are evidence of support for geocentrism.
One would have to considerably reduce the alleged and accepted distances
these stars are from the solar system, for this hypotheses to have any value. I
see no evidence that would convince me that these distances are wrong.
I apologise for any distraction I caused. It was fun though, as I was
forced to get with the facts, which I now want to forget.
I continue to hold to my original stated position in support of
geocentrism, namely that the laws of Newton hold true but are incomplete
without the effect of an aether being included. Therefore I do not have any
facts as such, but merely a hypotheses , in support of geocentrism.
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date: 28/10/2007
1:58 PM
Other related posts:
