[geocentrism] Re: Steven's points
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:06:05 +0200
I will explain all this confusion about yearly and daily star-trails,
and precession, when we get to the discussion part. I don't have time
right now (it will take some making of figures), and it is on my list
of points that you have submitted.
Regards,
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Ok all. I have just come off the phone with the local Observatory at
> Maidenwell Qld.
>
> I told him of our problem as regards what is observed. He replied that it was
> right up his alley, and he was working on star trails..
>
> "Good." I said, "then you agree that an observer rotating with the earth in
> 24 hours at the equator will see the N or S polar star prescribe a circle/"
>
>
> "Yes of course" he replies, even giving me both Northern and souther
> examples. .
>
> "Well then why doesn't this same observer see this same star prescribe an
> even greater circle over a period of observation for one year?"
>
> "Because it doesn't. It will stay in that same part of the sky" he replied
> quite emphatically.
>
> "Why not?" The heliocentrist in me was actually quite surprised.
>
> "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.
>
> "what's it all about/" It sounded like he expected to hear from a
> geocentrist, but I held my peace. I had no audience.. LOL
>
> I thanked him and hung up in disgust,
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
