[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:12:30 +0100

Dear Paul,
Here are a number of reasons why people do not always respond to other's 

1    They feel it would be a waste of time.
2    They are busy people with more important issues.
3    They haven't got an answer and so keep quiet.
4    It is low on their e-mail priority.
5    The content is regarded as nonsense, inaccurate, rambling or digressive.
6    They didn't get the e-mail.

It would be wrong to assume that the lack of a response gives you some kind of 


  ----- 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 

  (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 

  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 

Other related posts: