[geocentrism] Re: Dynamical Equivalence
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:06:47 -0500
Thank you, Jack. God bless you.
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 3:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Dynamical Equivalence
> 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:
