[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:38:46 -0700 (PDT)
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: DIV { MARGIN: 0px }
"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..
1. that is exactly what the astronomer told you....
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."
"Ok!" I was already confirmed in what MS observed, that Steven was citing the
officially accepted observation, but I wanted to now stir his education in
geometry.
"You are saying that if the observer moves over a base line equal to the
diameter of the earth the apex of the triangle with that star will appear to
prescribe a circle. Yet if the same observer moves over a base line equal to
the diameter of the earths orbit, over a year, the apex of the triangle with
the same star will not change its position at all."
"thats right."
He didn't seem to understand my simple geometrical example.. If my geometry
was wrong, then he should have been able to expose the error of my reasoning..
Yet he went to the trouble to explain that the observer on the equator during
our daily rotation will see a greater deviation than one closer to the poles.
it is obvious that he did understand you......his answer is HC/AC dogma...
2. Even if Paul was right and the AC/HC astronomer was wrong on that issue,
that whole issue is moot!... I just was not going to let Paul get away with
it...However, the issue is the fact that star trails exist because of rotation
around the nightly axis...(the annual axis is a real axis that is larger not
smaller then the nightly one. Regardless of what size they would be
"proportionally" around that axis , [earth's orbit] they should at least exist
) The rotation around that annual axis is the exact same kind of rotaion with
the exact same view opportunity with the exact same stars with the same
observer, camera..etc.....
I cant understand why this is so hard.........Nevile, there is much work to
be done.....i think we need a HC/AC sim in maya or somthing...?
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:
