[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:08:56 +1000
"Quite simple. The earth is tilted at that part of the sky. The tilt is
maintained toward that part of the sky throughout the orbit around the sun, and
so the star always appears in the same spot."
I don't recall the context and I'm not going to look it up, but here he --
the scientist -- is simply stating the obvious -- a star which happens to lie
on the extended axis of rotation of a planet will indeed 'keep station'.
Provided that star is far enough away. And they all are. If the point of
light on the axis had features such as a binary for example, a face, then even
here rotation would be discernable.
But any star off the axis, like Polaris is for example, will show rotation if
either the sphere rotates, or the observer rotates.
Proving the difference is the problem. And as well. And it is this that is
being contested by us all. The big question.
Does the view of the rotation of that star vary proportionally with the
radius of rotation of the observer..
Thats the simple question. And we have to answer it here on earth.
I think that because of the distance we are away from the star, any
photographed trail will have the same diameter and be in the same position
photographed from any location on the northern hemisphere, and indeed from any
position in the earth sun heliocentric or geocentric system .
As we have seen this is difficult to prove. I'm working on an experiment.
I leave you with something to think about.
Last night I looked at the moon. In a minute I COULD HAVE DRIVEN A 20 MILE
CIRCUIT around MY TOWN, a big enough circle proportionately, and the moon never
moved in azmith or elevitation.
Philip.
Other related posts:
