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

  • From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:39:50 -0700 (PDT)

  I don't think that the other motions that I mentioned trying to incorporate 
are large enough to make any real difference, I'm just trying to think of 
everything I can in an effort to see if I've missed something really basic. Are 
far as I can tell, it should be as I have described.
  I'm going to hold off on the program you suggested, and have another stab at 
it in the drafting software that I am familiar with, It does all kinds of cool 
3d stuff. I'll send something in when I get something worth looking at. I look 
forward to seeing what you come up with.
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          Dear James,
  Was I wrong when I suggested that you had cracked the helio annual trail?
  I would have thought that Neville's planetarium model could be programmed to 
do an annual star trail. However it may be that it is too big a job to try and 
do with Neville's current resources. Have you ever heard of a drawing program 
by Google called 'Sketchup'? Its a free down load and it is very user friendly 
and intuitive. You can create illustrations in 3D live as it were. This could 
be a good tool to show these star trails. Why don't you download it and give it 
a try. I'll have a go with mine and see what I can come up with. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: j a 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 7:05 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)

  It is difficult to imagine what something looks like when it involves such 
large distances and pre-conceived notions, but I'll tell you what I'm thinking. 
When we were disussing this a year or 2 ago, I was of the opinion that the 
double rotation was not a factor in star trails becuse the 2 baselines (1 au 
versus earths radius) are not different enough in size compared to the star 
distance. I could visualize it so easily. What I failed to know then that Ya'll 
have made known to me now, is that the 2 rotations have different axis. That 
being said, it should look like a spirograph. The edge (or a point) on the 
nightly circle should trace out a different circle over a year. The small 
nightly Polaris circle should trace out a larger annual circle, while a star 
with a large nightly circle would trace out a smaller annual circle. Use your 
drawing Jack, take any one of the nightly circles and roll it around the 
circumference of the annual circle it touches. If you were able to
 take a yearlong exposure of a single star it should look like a giant donut. 
Polaris would make a skinny donut with a large hole.
  Thats how I'm seeing it right now, subject to change, as I continue to try to 
visualize the mechanics. I'm trying to wrap my head around this and I'm also 
trying to consider whether the minor sine wave like motion that the observer 
would traverse with the annual axis would make any difference or if I used a 
more eliptical obit, it seems to be just beyond my brains ability.
  I think we should get some computer expert (hint hint) to program this visual 
effect for all to see what we should see if A-centrism be true. If only we knew 
someone with programming experience with graphics and planetery motion (hint 
hint). If only, if only. Is anyone aware of someone like that?

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 

Other related posts: