[geocentrism] Re: stevens point
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:35:22 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
Still short of time -- inserts again.Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 28 October, 2007 8:26:00 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] stevens point
Paul said,
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.
[ not so. This is not parallax. Parallax is an error of observation introduced
by the movement of the observer or the object observed relative to an
intermediate object. [ Oh contrare! It is parallax, except that the
intermediate object is the star which holds our interest. The parallax is
measured relative to a truly distant object , preferably at infinity but the
edge of the observable universe will do til then, when we -- the observer --
move. ]
Thats three 3 points. With only two points, observer and observed, parallax is
not involved. This despite other theories, or whatnot, is the true meaning.
What you meant to say is that extreme distances make the measurement of angles
of observation on a small base line very difficult. [True.] Question When
does an extreme distance become equal to infinity for an observation... ] PS
why do you call this an apparent angular change? Do you doubt the reality of
it? [No. It must have been late. Strike 'apparent'.]
Paul Said. (well I think Paul said... his construction of the post was very
confusing.) [Sorry -- it must have been late. Oh! I've already used that one ..
er ... ]
"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!"
Well yes if the earth was orbiting the sun that is what I would expect.. But
that is not what we get.. Not a itty bitty circle of dots.. at least thats
what our local astronomer says. [Well as I said somewhere in the last post --
this is what I'm going to make you guys understand. Actually Regner alluded to
his having to address this issue but I'll keep plugging away anyway.]
I actually have difficulty believing Paul wrote that, because of his latter
claim that no camera could see such detail, and perhaps it was Steven, in
support of his point, but it (my response) is still true nonetheless.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:51 PM
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.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007
2:31 PM
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
