[geocentrism] Re: Steven's points
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:58:12 +1000
On programs Steven, they can produce any result desired. Good for animation,
but not a proof. "the Earth magically aligning itself with Polaris over the
course of a year" cannot happen, because as I will try to show later, and
others may correct me if my logis is wrong,
any alleged correction motion of the earth to make the North end fit what is
seen, will completely distort and increase the error as seen to the south.
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:38 PM
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:
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
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: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 25/10/2007
5:38 PM
Other related posts:
