[geocentrism] Re: Catching up
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 16:48:30 +0100
Dear Neville,
> You said, "But you've stated that relativity is wrong and that you
> believe we live in Newtonian absolute space and time. You still
> haven't answered my question as to how you account for satalites in
> geostationary orbit not falling from the sky above a stationary earch
> in an absolute Newtonian universe."
>
> I was answering a question from someone who believes in
> heliocentrism. I answered it in two ways: firstly, I used the method
> that their own system relies upon. I am perfectly entitled to use a
> consequence of their model (or rather, a mainstay theory of their
> model) to answer the question.
True, I have no problem with that, so long as you don't use that to
justify your point of view.
> Secondly, I gave my own answer, in the
> Bible-based system that I believe in. Surely this was just an honest
> reply?
True, I have no problem with that either (although I don't personally
see the Bible as having anything more than historical significance).
> Similarly, I am perfectly entitled to appeal to the mass of
> the universe argument to answer your geostationary satellite question
> (Lense and Thirring, et al.).
I'm not so sure about this. I'm hoping some people on bad astronomy
will set me straight with regards to Mach's Principle w.r.t. Newton.
I'm going to have to read up on few things and get back to you on this.
> You further ask, "You may have retracted your paper on the eclipes
> but you still claim that the geostatic model is dynamically different
> to the heliocentric model. In that case my question regarding
> predictions from different points of view such as the moon, the
> centre of the galaxy etc. still stands."
>
> I agree with you, your question does still stand, because, at the
> moment, I am unable to answer it to either your, or my, satisfaction.
Ok, fair enough, I'll leave that line alone until you decide to
resurrect it. But if you claim that there is a difference I will refute
it and remind you that you have not demonstrated this.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
