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

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:01:00 -0800

Paul,

My replies in red:

www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 04:02:42 +0000 (GMT)

Neville J

Well we seem to have some common ground now. Are you reading this Allen?
Polaris, when considering the rotation about the ecliptic axis, is just another star. The path to Polaris will define a cone of 47 degrees centred on the ecliptic axis.

Yes, we are agreed on this, but Allen and I will not agree to what you maintain next.

Now to the celestial coordinate system -- yes it works well but of course it is only an artifact. And I'll stop you there, because it would not be a worthwhile artifact if it did not work well. If it did not work, then the chances are that you and I would never have heard of it.

The rest of your post talks of latitude and longitude, for instance, but the point that is escaping you is that latitude and longitude are fixed to the thing whose coordinates they are describing. If they were not fixed, then they would not work as they do.

To illustrate. Say we established latitude and longitude lines on the World just as they have been defined, but at some particular instant. Say, then, that the World started rotating relative to this grid of lines. Would the coordinate system still work? No, it would not. If you knew the rate of rotation and the direction, then you could always compensate for the movement, but no one needs to do that, because latitude and longitude is fixed to the World. It is in exactly the same way that right ascension and declination are fixed to the celestial sphere. Both rotate about only the celestial polar axis. If the universe were seen to rotate about another axis then the grid would no longer work as it does.

Neville.

It is just an agreed set of markers which make it possible for one man to be understood by another man when he describes where to look to see a comet etc. It may well be the best system possible for man discussing day to day events but even in this time frame, there are many other ways this could have been achieved. As a child, I pondered latitude and longitude, and wondered why longitude was not similar to latitude in consisting of a succession of rings on parallel planes. It would have worked, but later I realised that there were advantages to having longitude composed of circles which intersected on a common line -- the axis of rotation.
Bottom line here is that systems devised by man for man revolve around the time frame or some other consideration in which they will have the greatest utility. If the time frame of greatest utility were to have an annual frequency rather than daily, then a system based on the ecliptic pole could well be more efficient. Horses for courses! And of course there is no reason why both should not exist simultaneously, the system used for a given task being the one in which calculations are more easily carried out. Inter planetary navigation I feel sure would be much more likely to use a system based on the ecliptic as this allows the location of the home world to be defined with only two parameters rather than the three and the location of other planets vary only slightly from the earth referenced ecliptic plan. I noticed in a post from Philip M -- isn't he a terrier in the research arena? -- a reference to an ecliptic which was based on the momentum of all the planets in the solar system. I can see where this would have utility. And of course that would be entirely an artifact, but still potentially just as useful as any other reference system, and complete with its very own set of ecliptic poles!
Paul D.
3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver Preview
Free 3D Marine Aquarium Screensaver
Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your desktop! Check it out at www.inbox.com/marineaquarium

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 11-2007