[geocentrism] Re: celestial poles argumentation

  • From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT)

Yes i accept that..... but im sure i have read and seen photo exposures for 
stars taken with exposures over the course of months i just donʼʼt know 
where.......However this is a experiment that could be easily performed with a 
good location and photo/telescopic equipment since the sun would rise earlier 
everyday on a 23h 56 min schedule it would need to pick a star away from 
sunrise with the first exposure to begin shortly before daybreak with each 
successive exposure 23hours 56 min latter taken earlier in the night each night 
until you run out of darkness....

but the point about parallax would give us a independent variable for 
understanding what does and could not cause parallax in the background 
stars.....if no wobble then there would have to be some other perhaps as 
suggested before intrinsic motion to the stars..that expiation would no longer 
be "convenient" since the proof of no rotation around the secondary north 
celestial axis is independent of the whole parallax issue, thus the issue of 
convenience or coincident is made moot. But now we know what does not cause 
parallax in the most distance stars....and in either case it cant be due to the 
earth going around the sun nor can it be due to a wobble of the stars around a 
centered earth...we can isolate any potential wobble to just the sun and the 
planetary system....i think this is significant.


----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 3:45:13 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: celestial poles argumentation


Allen,

My replies in red:
 

www.GeocentricUniverse.com



-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:29:50 -0700 (PDT)


Nevile, 
1.Do you or anyone know of any examples of long term photo exposures of any 
stars taken over a period of months direct link to.. for the purposes of 
demonstrating no positional deviation every 23 hours 56 min so as to be able to 
take long term exposure of photo of star(s)
No, but I know that there is basically no such movement, because otherwise the 
(right ascention, declination) coordinate system would not work. 
 
2. If there are no star trails or rotation about the secondary north celestial 
axis then any wobble in the suns motion about the earth must be local to the 
sun only and is not intrinsic to the stars Correct. This is the essence of the 
argument that allows us to disprove heliocentricity (ie the lack of connection 
between the Sun's motion and that of the stars) thus parallax in any case can't 
be a result of earths orbit/rotation about the sun or the universe wobble about 
the earth ..only a possible wobble in the local planetary system. 
Neville






Free 3D Earth Screensaver - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth

Other related posts: