Regner also made this startling observation, "But if all the stars, and with them, all the galaxies, are centered on the Sun, what then is centered on the Earth, justifying the label of "Geocentric Universe"??? Regner At first I was startled. But Regner, if all this circles the sun, and the sun itself circles the earth, then the reality remains that the average centre of the suns position must still actually be the earth.. Of course I feel such a system mechanically untenable, if normal mechanical laws were involved.. Only by these being disrupted by a new theory of the aether and its relationship to mass and inertia, could ever make such a system explainable. Simply because consensus goes against an aether theory, and favours the current theory, does not make it absolute.. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Regner Trampedach To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:25 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Stellar Parallax/Regner philip madsen wrote: Regner I worry how you can enter discussions with the diversity of junk mail presented, but I guess a few filtered words like Catholic, Bible and God and Jew and ... might help if you have a filter.. The problem is people do not keep subjects within the subject line.. I try. Yes, it does take a lot of wading. Thanks for (trying to) keeping true to the subject line. I find myself sometimes forgetting to correct the subject line when I reply... Well Jack, I can get what the original intended, this time round.. It startles a little at first because the diagrams look so similar, and it is necessary to actually identify the bodies S and E which have their roles reversed. But is it a manipulative trick? If the sun moves around the earth, then also the stars N and F every day. The bottom diagram is not a manipulative trick - it is merely showing the Earth perspective in a Universe where the stars are fixed with respect to the Sun (In reality they, of course, move along (fairly) straight lines relative to the barycentre of the Solar system). There are two ways this can happen: a) in the Heliocentric Solar system. b) in a Geocentric Universe, where all stars, however, are centered on the Sun...As advocated by several members of this board. Thus looking at the bottom pic, when the sun is at the top, marked July, the stars N and F should be vertically above, and likewise in January, vertically below.. because they also rotate around the earth with the sun, less the annual increment.. or plus I'm not that good at astronomy. As shown in the figure, right? I feel that the viewing angles might still fulfill the requirements, as the bottom diagram is trying to show, but How? See above, and my posts: Reply to Jack Lewis, 01/05/2008 My reply to R. Sungenis, 23/5/2008 Regner who has a mind tuned to planetary motions, should be able to answer, if this is so.. and if my memory is true, I think he did say or acknowledge that parallax would not distinguish or prove either system.. It cannot distinguish between a) or b) above, but I have a hard time justifying calling b) a Geocentric Universe.. I don't know about you. Anyway, it is not a proof, but you guys will need to explain to me, how b) can happen. Regner thanks.. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Lewis To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Stellar Parallax Some time ago someone offered two diagrams depicting stellar parallax, but I can't remember who. This caught my imagination and I decided to tidy-up the drawing and explanations. Would the originator of the attached drawings like to confirm that my understanding is correct? Jack -------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1457 - Release Date: 5/20/2008 4:45 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1461 - Release Date: 5/22/2008 4:44 PM