No clarification from Orbisect about his first experiment although he's actively posting elsewhere. He's probably unwilling to answer questions about, clarify, and defend his rather poorly-defined procedures.
Moving along to Experiment 2 with the assumption that the "wobble" he refers to is the 26,000-year precession of the Equinoxes. Orbisect: if this is not what was intended, please speak up!
Now we're going to show how truly IMPOSSIBLE this really is, because earth has to point at the southern pole-stars at the same time.
EXPERIMENT 2
1) For the next experiment, go to your local crafts store and get one of those foam spheres (this will act as Earth for our experiment).
2) Take a straight stick (like a skewer or a sharp dowel) and poke a hole through the top and bottom, perfectly center.
3) Take two lasers and push one through each end so that they are pointing outward (lasers are cheap these days and can be found at your local convenience store at the counter for a dollar or two).
4) With a marker, make a dot on the ceiling (representing Polaris), and another dot on the floor (representing the southern pole-stars).
5) Turn on the lasers and hold the sphere in the center of the room.
6) Make the lasers point at both points (stars).
In order for this to simulate the Earth's orientation with respect to (wrt) its orbital plane, and assuming the simulated plane of the Earth's orbit is parallel to the floor and ceiling midway between them (it can be anything you want, but this is convenient to visualize) you need to place the dots representing the celestial poles so that the axis of the Earth is tilted roughly 23.5° wrt the floor, plane, and ceiling (since they're all parallel).
7) While TILTING the globe, and making it WOBBLE, try to make the laser point directly at both points (stars) at the same time.
OK, we have the tilt part set up. Now, slowly rotate your simulated earth about an axis perpendicular to the plane of the orbit (i.e. straight up and down) and watch the lasers trace circles on the floor and ceiling. This simulates the movement of the Celestial Poles due to precession; the circles represent the path the celestial poles take around the ecliptic poles, directly above and below our model, and one complete circuit takes 26,000 years to complete in real time. After completing one complete "wobble", you're right back at the celestial poles where you started.
Note: It doesn't matter that the wobble happens slowly in "reality," any wobble will prove the point that it's impossible; For this experiment we have not even made the earth move in an orbit as if around the sun - which would increase the impossibility of the matter - as if "impossibility" can be increased.
The "wobble" happens slowly enough that it's not noticeable to the casual observer on a year-to-year basis, but for precision work it needs to be continuously accounted for, and after several decades accumulates enough that even printed celestial catalogs and atlases must be re-issued; the epoch for most recent catalogs is J2000.0 (2000 Jan 1.5 Terrestrial Time; roughly noon UTC Jan 1, 2000); the previous set was B1950.0 (1950 January 0.9235 TT; roughly 10 pm UTC Dec 31, 1949). See
epoch for more information about Julian and Besselian dates, and astronomical epochs in general.
Recall from the previous experiment that a 20-meter high ceiling (representing the distance to Polaris) above our spinning globe means that the simulated orbit would be a couple of microns in diameter to be at scale. If we use a more realistic 8-foot (2.44-meter) ceiling (standard in the USA), it's 4 feet (1.22m) above our simulated earth (middle of the room, remember); the slant-line distance is slightly longer ("Polaris" isn't directly above us - it's at an angle) so let's call it 1.5m. In this case, the scaled diameter of the orbit would be about 0.15 microns, or fifteen hundredths of one thousandth of a millimeter - the wavelength of short-wave UV light. I think we can all agree that the effect of the Earth's orbit about the Sun at this scale is so small it can be safely ignored.
I await the video of you making this happen.
If it's up to me, you're in for a long wait. I don't "do" videos.
With the two experiments above, one of the following has been proved (to people with brains).
a) There is an intelligent creator (God) who tuned the universe so well that earth points at two poles trillions of miles away in each direction, and it does this while moving in orbit, tilting, and wobbling - this is absolutely impossible by chance; and only possible by design and fine tuning.
The axis is going to point at
something in two directions, and the poles aren't any set distance from earth; effectively, they're at infinity. One direction happens to be fairly close to a moderately bright star for the time being. This will happen from time to time during the 26,000-year cycle, so it's convenient, but not particularly meaningful.
b) The scientific community has lied to you and me; in which case they are liars and can't be trusted, and therefor you are trusting liars regarding things like evolution and flat-earth.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. It will be given all the consideration it deserves. Have a nice day.
c) I have just proved science wrong.
Where?
Now this makes me smarter than NASA and all your scientists... In which case I have to ask: why are you even arguing with someone smarter than all your scientists; and I must ask myself: why would I even bother to carry on a discussion with YOU?
(If you respond that science is wrong about this observable fact, then how can it be right about evolution, which has no observable evidence. You disbelieve what you can see, but believe what you can not see. Further, you have admitted that science is wrong about this simple matter, and now you have no scientific legs to stand upon - you have pulled them out from under yourself. Science can not be trusted - even in the most elementary matters. In choosing option c. that science is wrong, you can not do so without admitting that I am right, and that I am smart enough to figure out what they could not... and yet you're still arguing with me (I find this foolish to the nth). They are what Jesus called "Blind guides." And as he said, a blind guide can not lead another who is blind.)
More opinion based on the erroneous idea that the experiments proposed contradict what is already known. Thankyouverymuch. Haveaniceday.
How much does anyone want to bet that a responder will avoid discussing the experiments - and even more so, attempting to prove it wrong in a video presentation?
Since this has been restarted in a "discussion friendly" area of the forums, I'm delighted to discuss the experiments. Now all you have to do is respond, otherwise, the discussion will be kinda one-sided. No video is going to "prove" anything, so I don't traffic in them.