Dear Paul, Here are a number of reasons why people do not always respond to other's e-mails. 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 advantage. 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.