[geocentrism] Re: Dynamical Equivalence
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:14:58 -0000
Yes Cheryl and I've posted it to you. It's Neville and Steven's Geocentric
Universe 2.2. It will show you everything you need.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dynamical Equivalence
>
> Steven -- Unless as you say the earth drags all the stars with it when it
> makes its orbit around the sun, the atheist/helios have no explanation for
> why the poles remain fixed. That is obvious even to me who avoids math
> because it gives me a headache.
>
> This proof is easy to understand. Obviously the poles would be all over
the
> place, especially the south pole. The heliocentric model makes as much
sense
> as lizards' scales turning into feathers over billions of years, of their
> front legs turning into wings and their back legs growing long and skinny
> and turning into the stick-legs of a bird, of their teeth nubbing back
into
> their skull, and their noses turning into beaks -- and LEAVING ABSOLUTELY
NO
> EVIDENCE, no fossils anywhere.
>
> I would be interested to know what the atheists have to say about this,
how
> they would explain the poles not going nuts.
>
> Are there any animated models that show what things would or could look
like
> with a nonspinning, geocentric earth regarding the orbits of the sun,
moon,
> earth and planets?
>
> In your opinion what kind of things, if any, would a space probe be able
to
> document regarding this, to me, huge difference?
>
> I'm still wondering why NASA can't document the Copernican hypothesis they
> have embraced with timelapse pictures to prove something some of us at
least
> down here on earth would be mighty interested in finding out. If nothing
> else, if they could document that the earth is turning. In your opinion
is
> this even theoretically possible? I still don't see why they couldn't.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Cheryl
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Jones" <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:32 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Dynamical Equivalence
>
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > The rotating world is essential for worldly acentric cosmology, the
> blasphemous belief where the centre of the universe is nowhere and the
> circumference of which is everywhere. Such a confused understanding is not
> in harmony with the bible and therefore should be firmly rejected.
> >
> >
> >
> > Provided the Earth rotates, then even if the cosmos is geocentric the
> geocentric model merely becomes a special instance of the heliocentric
one,
> where one has simply just pushed the sun of centre.
> >
> >
> >
> > A very good example of this can be found at this web site:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/ptolemy.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Three models are presented clearly in the java animation:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Extremely unusual Ptolemiac model where the world revolves.
> >
> >
> >
> > Heliocentric model
> >
> >
> >
> > Modified Tychonic model
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What is not immediately obvious is that all three of the models assume a
> rotating world, therefore all three models are dynamically equivalent.
> >
> >
> >
> > Key features in the geocentric models are:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The World completes one revolution on its axis once every 23 hours 56
> minutes, rotating west to east, which is why the stars are seen to rise in
> the east and set in the west in the same time.
> >
> >
> >
> > The sun orbits the Earth once every 365.25 days which explains the
> transit of the sun through the ecliptic (the background of stars).
> >
> >
> >
> > The moon takes about 28 days to orbit the Earth travelling west to
> east, which is about 50.5 minutes slower than the world rotates in the
same
> direction and therefore explains why the moon can be seen to rise in the
> east and set in the west.
> >
> >
> >
> > The stars do not move.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No comparison of the heliocentric model to the geocentric ones is
> necessary because only one thing has changed between them. Instead of the
> sun orbiting the Earth once a year the Earth orbits the sun once a year.
> This is dynamical equivalence, but it is not biblical for the Bible
stresses
> that the Earth cannot be moved, and therefore does not rotate.
> >
> >
> >
> > We then derive the conclusion that the universe is both geocentric and
> geostatic, a comparison is now necessary between the aforementioned models
> and the new geostatic and geocentric model.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The World completes one revolution on its axis once every 23 hours 56
> minutes, rotating west to east, which is why the stars are seen to rise in
> the east and set in the west in the same time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG
> >
> >
> >
> > The World stands stationary at the centre of the universe, no motion is
> attributed to the world.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The sun orbits the Earth once every 365.25 days which explains the
> transit of the sun through the ecliptic (the background of stars).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG
> >
> > The sun orbits the Earth once every twenty four hours, which explains
the
> days.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The moon takes about 28 days to orbit the Earth travelling west to
> east, which is about 50.5 minutes slower than the world rotates in the
same
> direction and therefore explains why the moon can be seen to rise in the
> east and set in the west.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG
> >
> > The moon takes about 24 hours 50.5 minutes to orbit the Earth travelling
> east to west which is the opposite direction.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The stars do not move.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG
> >
> > The stars orbit the World once every 23 hours 56 minutes east to west.
> >
> >
> >
> > We can conclude that this is not dynamical equivalence. If then a
> geostatic and geocentric model is physically different from a heliocentric
> or geocentric model where the world does rotate, we should be able to
> predict discrepancies or differences between the two to prove once and for
> all which model is true.
> >
> >
> >
> > This has been done and one such example is at:
> >
> >
> >
> > www.midclyth.supanet.com/page32.htm
> >
> > I urge you all to study the celestial poles argument and tell me what
you
> think.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yours in Christ,
> >
> >
> >
> > Steven Jones.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
