[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:55:05 +0100 (BST)
Dear Ronald,
Thank you for your kind and supportive words. I seek only God's glory, which I
maintain is obscured by this heliocentric ball of knotted twine that we are all
taught from an early age. I was hence disappointed that the eclipse shadow
direction did not bring this system down, but these are early days, after four
hundred years of ever-deeper obfuscation. It isn't going to implode without a
fight.
In response to your question of whether, "this change in ideas [will] affect
the contents of the DVD," my reply is that the eclipse shadow paper will be
removed from future copies of the model that go out, but that this will be the
only alteration at present. I remain firmly convinced that a geostatic cosmos
is not dynamically equivalent to a heliocentric one and, therefore, I support
the absolute nature of space and time, as advocated by Newton, rather than the
relative nature believed since Einstein.
In respect of this, the answer to Jack's first question below is that Einstein
based Special Relativity (SR) on the constant velocity of light (in vacuo) and
the principle of relativity. For his General Relativity (GR), Einstein threw
out the requirement for a constant velocity of light. Although this discrepancy
was clear to Einstein, he did not address it, or even appear to be in the least
bit bothered by it. Indeed, after ten years of mathematical tensor analysis, to
arrive at GR, Einstein then tossed in the "Cosmological Constant," in order to
make his work "fit" the ruling paradigm. Such reasoning and attitude is
commonplace, but Einstein, in particular, does seem to have sown the seeds of
enormous confusion. The ridiculous concept of "space-time," for instance, was
dreamt up by a mathematician called Minkowski and siezed upon by Einstein as
being "brilliant."
Experiments such as Michelson-Morley, and many others, demonstrate that the
World does not move, but were "saved" from this obvious conclusion by the work
of Einstein.
As for experiments that "prove" SR, they do no such thing, but are based upon
circular reasoning in the extreme. Nevertheless, geocentrists who advocate an
annual rotation of the starry heavens about the World, can save their position,
too, by recourse to GR. So, I suppose the score is still level.
Neville.
Jack Lewis <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Griffin"
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 8:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge
>
> Also, the stars would be travelling faster than light, which is
> impossible according to Einstein's theory of relativity.
Question 1
What was Einstein's basis for formulating his theory?
> I suppose you will say that you don't accept Newton's laws, or the
> theory of relativity, (which have been supported by all the experiments so
> far carried out). >
Question 2
What are these experiments - are they to do with particle physics?
Jack
"There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of God,
that the same minute and searching investigation, which
displays the defects and imperfections of the one, brings out also the beauties
of the other." - Alexander Hislop, "The Two Babylons."
Website www.midclyth.supanet.com
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
