[geocentrism] Re: Steven's points

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:04:19 -0800

Hello Stavs,

Mainstream astronomy explains this with the alleged enormous distances to the stars, such that the axis does not have to reorientate itself.

However, it is these enormous distances which lead to the heliocentric inability to account for motion that should occur about the ecliptic polar axis.

Dad
www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:38:24 +0100
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Steven's points

Hi Paul,

This "wobble" that we are talking about is not the precession of the equinoxes at all, it's the Earth magically aligning itself with Polaris over the course of a year because otherwise heliocentrism will not account for what we see. The real problem then, is if this magic alignment is taking place in the north then what about the south? You don't need Starry Night to see it, only Quicktime player available from apples website. www.apple.com/quicktime

Steven.

Paul Deema wrote:
Steven J, Jack L
I don't know what this 'wobble' is that you guys keep bringing up. If it's the precession of the equinoxes then it's irrelevant. See here (first two paragraphs are sufficient for this purpose).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes

The precession of Earth's axis of rotation with respect to inertial space is also called the precession of the equinoxes. Like a wobbling top, the direction of the Earth's axis is changing; while today, the North Pole points roughly to Polaris, over time it will change. Because of this wobble, the position of the earth in its orbit around the sun at the moment of the equinoxes and solstices will also change.

The term precession typically refers only to the largest periodic motion. Other changes of Earth's axis are nutation and polar motion; their magnitude is very much smaller.

Currently, this annual motion is about 50.3 seconds of arc per year or 1 degree every 71.6 years. The process is slow, but cumulative. A complete precession cycle covers a period of approximately 25,765 years, the so called Platonic year, during which time the equinox regresses a full 360° through all twelve constellations of the zodiac. Precessional movement is also the determining factor in the length of an astrological age.

None of us will sit around for even one degree's worth of this. Could you be talking about nutation or polar motion? I'd guess not but I'm open to suggestion.

That leaves rotation about the celestial polar axis and rotation about the ecliptic polar axis. The celestial polar axis is easy -- let's get that out of the way first. We are agreed that there is relative radial motion of the sky about the celestial polar axis or the Earth on its axis or some combination of these two and that the time scale is once per sidereal day. Our disagreement is about just what is rotating and what -- if anything -- is still.

The difficulty comes when rotation about the ecliptic polar axis is being considered. This rotation is centred on the ecliptic poles which are on a line through the plane of the ecliptic and orthogonal to it, the period being one year. If you want to see (photograph) it, you'll first have to place the ecliptic pole in the centre of the frame. Secondly, you'll have to observe it over a period of something approaching months by recording one image each night -- at midnight is convenient -- and building up a composite of all the images.

I managed to visualize this in my head -- it seems to me you should be able to do the same, but if not, use a table top, salt and pepper shakers, whatever, as props. Then, placing your salt shaker towards the edge of the table, imagine it looking up toward a point on the ceiling removed to a very great distance. Take a mental image, then take one pace around the table and repeat until you arive back at your start point. If you now integrate all those images, you'll see that the ceiling has -- relatively speaking -- rotated a full 360 degrees.

This time I'll use this colour to insert a comment or two below.

Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 25 October, 2007 2:33:04 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. [If Earth points to Polaris yes, but of course it doesn't. It is just a coincidence that Polaris is close to the extension of the Earth's axis. That is why Polaris describes a small circle of ~ 1 1/2 degrees diameter.][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, [Then you do accept that it exists? (Not physically of course -- but as a valid description).] a cone is much more accurate to describe the Earth's wobble [Which wobble???] and what we see:

Figure 1

 

 



Figure 2
 

 


Figure 3
 


Attached is a file from "Starry Night Enthusiast", one of the leading commerical planetarium software packages on the market. [I'd guess that that is the .mov file. I'd further guess that one needs Starry Night in order to see it. Pity.] It depicts looking at Polaris from our location here in Scotland and spans many nights in sidereal time. Notice any movement? [From the above you will discern that I don't. How about a description of the movement that I don't see?]
Frankly, I don't see what you are getting at with these pictures, since the top two depict something which you specifically deny while the relevance of the third picture escapes me completely.

Best Wishes,

Steven.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
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
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.



Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2007