[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth deception

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 09:44:45 +0100

Dear Neville,
Could it be that in the helio system, their supporters say that because the 
pole star is so very far away that the angle subtended from it to the Earth's 
position, 6 months apart, would make no difference to the observed circles of 
stars around the pole star? A very convenient cop-out?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Neville Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2007 11:50 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth deception

  "Walter van der Kamp used such assumed association of stars with the Sun to 
deduce a 58-light-day radius (it may have been 60"

  Well yes, I can see why he might have even with the complications that might 
raise.  ..  But may I add some thoughts..  as it applies to the celestial 

  First up, in the GS system the earth is not tilted, but stands tall vertical 
and Proud. The tilt is an invention necessary to explain the seasons in the HC 
universe. (no one seems to have mentioned this.

  Yes, the World is not tilted, but the Sun's orbital plane most definitely is 
tilted, at approximately 23.5 degrees to the plane of the celestial equator. Do 
you not have GU 3.0 ? Oh, I see that you do not. Well, for a small 
consideration, ...

  Anyway, the movement of the Sun against the (infinitely far away in the HC 
system) background stars traces out the ecliptic. This ecliptic is explainable 
either by the Sun being in orbit around the World (correct interpretation), or 
the World being in orbit about the Sun (emperor's new clothes interpretation).

  In this perspective, with this orientation of the earth, as the sphere of the 
cosmos moves North and South with its annual oscillation, will the changing 
distance change the angle of view (which causes the polar star to circle) in 
the same manner as what we see.  Also Our system does not provide a base line 
for the geometry to measure distance (of the polar star) , as perhaps the HC 
system did.  But maybe the distance travelled vertically as measured against 
the latitudes of the earth, relative to the angle of the cone, as viewed from 
the pole, might give you something to work with..  Trig is tricky like that..  
in establishing the distance to the polar star. I never did much with cones.

  Not relevant. Back to the celestial poles page!



Other related posts: