[geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 09:22:21 -0800

Bernie,

It may not confuse them, because they have probably assumed the term 'geocentric' to mean no rotation about an axis and no orbital motion around the Sun. This is how we often use it on this forum. The only thing to make clear to them is that mainstream physics places a different meaning on it, although I consider that very few physicists are actually aware of the fact (simply because they are not interested in the word, 'geocentric').

The secular hijacking of 'geocentric' to make the heliocentric model equivalent has meant that it now means a central, but rotating, World.

This is why Robert and I, perhaps in particular, use GS or geostationary, rather than geocentric.

Neville.


-----Original Message-----
From: bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 07:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Celestial Poles

Neville said:
"Geocentrism (with a rotating World) is therefore an invalid model also, because it is geometrically equivalent to a heliocentric model. Hence, since the heliocentric one is wrong, the geocentric one (with the tacit assumption of a rotating World) must also be wrong."
 
This will confuse people now because I've been using the word Geocentric all along.
Maybe I'll have to start using the words "Geocentric and Geostationary" instead
of just "Geocentric".
 
Bernie 
Free 3D Earth Screensaver - Watch the Earth right on your desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/earth

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2007