[geocentrism] Re: Challenge Jack Lewis
- From: Alan Griffin <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 01:02:15 +0100
On 15 Aug, Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
So you STILL don't understand what aberration is! If the stars
move at different speeds, because they are at the different distances,
then their aberrations would be different. They're not. This is conclusive
proof that the earth is moving, not the stars,
> 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.
This of course is not excusing science of responsibility. It is
science being responsible.
> 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,
I don't see a great deal of damage in that! Evolution is fact!
Where is the "damage"?
> and even worse still using the
> fraudulent Piltdown man and the likwise questionable and lost relic
> called the peking man, as EVIDENCE.
Everyone knows that the Piltdown man was fake. I don't think
anyone is putting it forward 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.
But your hypotheses are so improbable that I still cannot believe
that anyone intelligent can possibly believe them to to be true!
Alan
Other related posts:
