[geocentrism] Re: Steven's points
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:48:30 +1000
Jack said,
The only way you guys can make this works for helio is to invent a gyroscopic
precession that exactly coincides with the annual orbit of the Earth.
But such a precession would put the south pole and north pole out of phase.
See stevens cones picture, A precession to correct the North would only
increase the circle on the south.
thats the first conclusion I would guess at... but then I'm just your ordinary
old electrician. Precession is another example of a difficulty.. It is caused
by gravity on a flywheel exerting a downward force.
Sounds a bit like the impossible scenario that talks of the earth tilting over
because of too much ice on the north pole... LOL.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 1:25 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Steven's points
Dear Paul,
Do you not think that this software is a 'showstopper'? The only way you guys
can make this works for helio is to invent a gyroscopic precession that exactly
coincides with the annual orbit of the Earth. Why on Earth (excuse pun) would
you want to do that??? Reasons please for why you would want to do that -
please nothing else at this stage.
Regards
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:33 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Steven's points
Me in blue:
Paul Deema wrote:
Jack L
Comments interspersed below in [colour].
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2007 11:29:21 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (no subject)
Dear Paul,
If the earth points to Polaris then its annual traced out volume must be
a cone with a very tiny angle subtended from Polaris. [This is an approximation
only. In point of fact, Polaris is not directly in line with the Earth's axis,
but at this time, describes a circle of about 1 1/2 deg centred on the actual
Celestial North Pole (the extension of the Earth's axis). There are other
motions which I do not have at my finger tips but in time it is likely that
Regner T will cover this matter.] I've no idea where you got your 'cylinder'
idea from. Is it your own or did you read it somewhere? [I didn't get it from
anywhere -- it simply exists. Stick a skewer in an apple and maintaining its
orientation, walk around the circumference of the Earth in a plane orthogonal
to the skewer. In so doing, the extended skewer will define a cylinder of
diameter ~12700km. If you instead walk around the Earth's orbit, the cylinder
will be ~2 AU diameter.]
This cylinder is irrelevant, a cone is much more accurate to describe the
Earth's wobble and what we see:
Attached is a file from "Starry Night Enthusiast", one of the leading
commerical planetarium software packages on the market. It depicts looking at
Polaris from our location here in Scotland and spans many nights in sidereal
time. Notice any movement?
Best Wishes,
Steven.
You mentioned parallax. Positive Stella parallax is one of the proofs
offered by helios for their model. Their problem with that is there are nearly
as many 'negative' measurements as positive. This would mean that the so called
stationary stars [That's nearly all of them. The few that aren't are referred
to as those possessing 'proper motion'.] , that are used to measure parallax.
[The parallax of close stars is measured against distant stars, all of which
are considered 'stationary'. ] cannot be stationary when compared with the
background stars. So if you shift the goalposts and move the stars further away
then you won't get any parallax at all! [Most of this sentence doesn't make a
lot of sense. I think perhaps you don't actually understand what constitutes
parallax.]
No moving earth. Voila! [Clearly you have not grasped what I have
described as you have not addressed the central issue.]
This idea of using stellar parallax and using only the positive
measurements and rejecting the negative measurements (very bad science indeed)
stems from a prior assumption that the earth moves. Circular reasoning. [I
don't have a handle on this approximately equal number of positive and negative
parallaxes so I can't add too much here except to note that one explanation
(upon which I would not place much reliance) could be that the reference
star(s) are simply not sufficiently distant. However, as you've quoted it, one
assumes that you understand it better than do I. Perhaps you could enlighten us
as to whether the measured parallax data correlate well with the distances
determined by the spectral type/apparent luminosity relationships?]
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: (no subject)
re:Steven's points.
From Steven Jones Thu Oct 25 05:56:41 2007
Quoting Philip M quoting Steven J ... 4. No observed yearly motion of
stars around ecliptic N/S-poles ...
Steven J ... It's true, no observed motion to match this criteria is
observed ...
I don't think you responded to my challenge on this matter in my post -
Supplementary to "...supported by facts?" From Paul Deema Thu Oct 18
19:59:07 2007
(In part).
Let me explain about the Heliocentric position.
One. The Earth rotates on an axis once per sidereal day with its North
Pole pointing to Polaris (give or take a degree) and its South Pole pointing to
Sigma Octantus (give or take a degree) the North and South Celestial Pole stars
respectively.
Two. The Earth revolves around the Sun at a distance of one AU (give or
take a million or two miles). As a consequence, the volume defined by the
Earth's axis on this annual journey is a cylinder -- not a cone. Because of the
ratio of one AU to the distance to the stars, the apparent angular change to
these pole stars is trivial and certainly less than one mas. This in fact is
the phenomenon of parallax.
Three. The best way to envisage rotation about the Ecliptic Poles is to
replace the Earth with a long flat narrow object oriented in the plane of the
Ecliptic, pivotted at the Sun and with an observation point at the end at one
AU distance. (This gets rid of the necessity of mentally struggling with the
Earth's axial inclination to the plane of the Ecliptic which seems to be such a
problem in the minds of Geocentrists, but if necessary, a mechanism to actually
resolve this difficulty can be explained). If we mount a camera at this
observation point and pointing up, it will be pointing at the (for convention)
North Ecliptic Pole. Now if we start this construct rotating at the same rate
as the Earth revolves and we open the shutter for a short period once per mean
solar day (equates to midnight on the Earth) for 365 exposures of the single
frame, then at the end of one year, we will have a photograph of many stars in
the form of concentric circles each composed of 365 dots and centred on the
North Ecliptic Pole. Voila!
Please -- demonstrate the weakness in my argument.
Paul D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
Get it now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get
it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007
2:31 PM
Other related posts:
