[geocentrism] Re: My logic or is it?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:39:02 +1000
We've been wasting time and sleep on this exercise.... Even if we wait till
vega becomes the North star in the year 14000AD, which is only 26 light years
away, we would still need to draw the base line in electrons.
I often only come to a conclusion after a sleep.. Wake up and its there.. Not
a real conclusion, just a fix for my geometry.
Celestial spheres, declinations , lunar standstills , et al.. Lets get this
debate on the road and off again.. If the world aint spinning, my head sure
is. the last thing I want is to carry all this extra terminology around for
too long. I am sure astronomy is like its precursor astrology, fun for those
with nothing useful to do, and is why I gave up star gazing after I got
married.
I have already asked you all to ignore my original geometrical logic two days
ago.
Paul is close to correct, even if he gave it in a bamboozeled way. Parallax
creates an illusion. If you are driving along the road at 60mph, the mountain
peak 100 miles away will seem to move with you even as the scenery near to the
road rushes past.
First up it is true, my out of scale drawing gives a very wrong idea of visual
reality. If the apex is so far away that the triangle sides would look vertical
on any part of the base line we have an indeterminate situation.
The angle of the North star to the horizon as one moves to southern latitudes
had caused me some confusion. This angle is caused by the relative movement of
the horizon , not a change in the true angle of the N star to a base line. A
bit like measuring the angle of view between a fixed object and say your left
hand as you moved your hand in closer to your line of sight on the star......
But no matter how far polaris is, lets put it spot on the celestial pole, so
that if the Celestial sphere were rotating a stationary earth, no rotation of
the point would be observed if you were standing on the earths pole. TRUE! So
now lets move out from the axis a thousand miles or so. Take a fix on that
point we called polaris still on that imaginary celestial pole position we put
it, and note the angle. Even if the Celestial sphere were spinning, the angle
noted would not change.
What if the C sphere is stationary and we rotated the observer around his
1000mile radius. This is the tricky part. You have to think carefully here.
The observer is rotated over say 180 degrees.
Its a matter of orientation. If the observer maintains his sight on the star
and keeps it there during his half orbit, then he will have himself rotated 180
degrees on his feet so to speak.. (this is synomonous with the moons one
rotation with each orbit of the earth) The observer will notice no change in
the stars position. He in effect started off facing directly at celestial W
and 180 degrees later be facing celestial E.
BUT if the observer insists on maintaining his orientation, resisting the
personal rotation, caused by the orbiting motion, and maintaining his facing
West orientation, then obviously he will need to turn his head 180 degrees to
keep his sight on the celestial pole star. From this he may deduce that the
star has moved a half circle across his sky, but that is not the reality..
Replace the observer with a photographic plate, same orientation , and lo we
will have a picture of a circle printed.
Now the question still remains unresolved. Whether the observer moved or the
celestial sphere......Thats the hypothetical question..
But with the orbit of the sun scenario, Paul and HC insists absolutely, that
the observer moves 190M miles across space, maintaining orientation to a fixed
celestial point, which I can nominally say East.
This is the same as the second example above, wherein if this motion is real,
the observer will have to turn his head to keep fixed upon the imaginary
celestial pole. Once again, if the observer then is a plate, a circle should be
printed.
Or is the base line too short relative to the apex even at 17 light minutes, to
give us any resolution? That is our question . ha ha....
Polaris is 430 light years away.
Thats 430 x 365 x 24 x 60 light minutes. on a base line of 17 light minutes
.(sun orbit)
226,008,000 light minutes to 17 or
13,294,588 to 1 Thats 13.294 kilometres to one single mm..
We've been wasting time and sleep on this exercise.... Even if we wait till
Vega becomes the North star in the year 14000AD, which is only 26 light years
away from earth, we would still need to draw the base line in electrons.
Philip.
Other related posts:
