[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 15:42:56 +0100
Dear Steven,
Steven Jones wrote:
> For simplicity, I
> have already explained the modified Tychonic Model to you which
> accounts for all of these phenomena for exactly the same mathematical
> reasons that heliocentrism allegedly accounts for them. When I showed
> you to be wrong using the modified Tychonic Model in a previous email
> regarding parallax, you then furiously dismissed the model as being a
> "ridiculous theory".
>
> I am afraid Mr. Griffin, though you find it "ridiculous", you cannot
> disprove it.
So what. It predicts nothing new and is ridiculously complicated
compared the conventional model that gravity causes smaller objects to
orbit larger ones (that's the simple version anyway). It doesn't even
explain "why" all those trajectories are followed. We may not know why
gravity is, but we know it's there and how it behaves and from one
formula can (in principle) predict all the movements of all "heavenly"
bodies. Rather than threatening to ban people and getting worked up
over their tone (when yours is not much better quite frankly), explain
to us something of this Tychonic Model. Show us how our observations
fit this model in anything deeper than the fact that it is how
everything appears from earth.
I could come up with any number of convoluted theories that fit the
observable facts and my particular beliefs and you couldn't disprove any
of them, doesn't give them any merit. Occams razor me old mucker.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
