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.
