[geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:18:26 +1000
Mike said
It is quite amusing to note that the lack of any observed parallax of
the stars used to be used as "proof" that the earth didn't move. Then
in 1725 James Bradley managed to observe the "parallax" and it seemed
that all the stars must be at the same distance. It turned out that
this "parallax" was actually due to aberration and the real parallax is
much smaller.
Phil responds.
Yet the model I described with the gyration as well as diurnal rotation,
both the aberration and parallax and doppler would occur to an observer on a
fixed earth as experienced.
I know it is difficult (at least to me) to visualise the sun being within
the orbit of the apex of the gyration, whilst still doing the 24 hour run
around the world, also doing a 365 day circumnavigation as well, caused by
the gyration. I had the same problem with understanding the mechanics that
stated that the moon , showing its same face to us must have a revolutionary
cycle equal to its orbital . It becomes clearer with a star system painted
on a clear sheet, and hand rotated in the manner described over a
stationary earth on the table. From inside the star system, the earth will
appear to circumnavigate the sun every year, whereas this is not the
reality. It is an illusion. Once again though, as I have always maintained,
there being NO point of reference called zero, niether proposition can be
proved. An illusion is an illusion even to instrumentation, because we
calibrate them on those preconceived assumptions that support the observable
reality/ilusion.
It is not good enough or even morally right to excuse science of
responsibility with the words that they are ever ready to update, and even
reverse an idea theory, as new knowledge is proven necessary to be included.
What about the damage done "like saying to the Wright brothers , you fools"
What about the damage done for the last century or so by teaching children
Darwin and evolution as fact, and even worse still using the fraudulent
Piltdown man and the likwise questionable and lost relic called the peking
man, as EVIDENCE.
I'm not here criticising people for making errors. I am criticising people
for taking the liberty of insisting upon everybody else who have different
insights, adhering to their belief system and following them into their own
self confessed likelyhood of becoming obsolete and outdated in the future.
That is not integrity. It is not honest.
Philip.
Other related posts:
