[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 03:18:34 +0000 (GMT)

Neville J
Basically you are telling me what I had already told you in Fig 2 -- is that 
not so?
Paul D

----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October, 2007 5:20:17 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)


You state (correctly) that "when you rotate the paper, you also rotate the 
poles!" Yes, my fault, I did see this when I submitted the post, but hoped that 
no one would pick it up. I will now be specific, as I should have been, so as 
to clear up this misunderstanding. In doing so, I hope that your 
misunderstanding will likewise be cleared up.

Take the same diagram and print it out on an A4 sheet of paper. Cut out the 
sphere and axis, such that it looks a bit like a compass needle. Keep the 
remainder of the A4 sheet fixed to the table (the remainder of the sheet 
represents the background - 'fixed' - star field). Rotate just the sphere/axis 
cut out through 23.5 degrees (or any amount you choose except multiples of 90 

Now you get the real picture - two sets of poles. In the 'upright' position you 
have the celestial poles. In the 'tilted' position you have the ecliptic poles.



National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. 
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV. 

Other related posts: