[geocentrism] Re: celestial poles argumentation

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 15:36:34 -0800


-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 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.

I do not follow what it is that you are trying to say. Let me think about this.


Other related posts: