[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: Steven Jones <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2004 12:39:07 +0100 (BST)
Dear Mr. Griffin,
Heliocentrism is not simpler than geocentrism, everything in the Earth
rotating, orbiting, wobbling, precessing lie is actually mathematically clumsy,
and absurdly complicated. As regards heliocentrism actually having a known
physical mechanism in the form of gravity, this is nonsense of the highest
magnitude. Has it ever occurred to you that if the planets were held in orbit
around the sun, then why has Mercury not spiralled into the sun and Pluto
disappeared into oblivion. Gravity does not account for there observed
behaviour in the least.
Unfortunately you still do not seem to be able to understand how the modified
Tychonic Model accounts for aberration, even though you mentioned the
possibility of the stars being an equal distance away in a previous posting.
The simplest solution that I will supply you with at present, is that all the
stars are roughly the same distance away.
As regards me proving you wrong concerning stellar parallax, I seem to recall
you admitting that the ?ridiculous theory where the stars go round every 24
hours? does account for the phenomena.
Kind Regards,
Steven Jones.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
