[geocentrism] Fw: Last call
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:26:46 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Last call
>
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > Since the GC forum is shutting down and you are the unofficial chief
> > inquisitor,
>
> (Wow, a title? Don't know if I deserve that honor...I used to watch
Columbo
> all the time. Perhaps pestering is a penchant of mine.)
>
> I have wrapped up my remaining comments about several postings
> > into one response.
>
> Thanks. You sound just like the BA-er I was always hoping to run into
over
> there but never did.
>
> >
> > > The "paradoxes" in relativity are not really paradoxes
> >
> > Agreed. A paradox is an apparent contradiction; Einstein's relativity is
a
> > true contradiction.
>
> Absolutely the best line I've heard in awhile....
> Gotta like it, yes.
>
> > There is no symmetry breaking - this argument was abandoned long ago.
> > Let two space travelers depart in opposite directions from earth with
> > identical histories of motion for speed, acceleration and deceleration.
> > Their trips will be symmetric in Minkowski space, since their world
lines
> > will be mirror images of each other within the light cone that has Earth
> as
> > the origin, at t =0.
> > Yet the contradiction remains, with perfect trip symmetry.......
> > A returns older than B and A returns younger than B
>
> Thanks very much for this example, Robert.
>
> > I'm abashed that some GC believers are non-Machian.
>
> Robert, my problem is I am so uneducated. I don't even know what
> non-Machian means. I have grown somewhat in knowledge though while on
this
> board and also the BA.
>
> > How do you explain Gen 1:14-19 and the Foucault pendulum, the [alleged]
> > equatorial bulge, the reduction in g acceleration at the equator, etc. ?
> And
> > all the other rotational motion 'disproofs' that the HC/AC folks cite?
>
>
> Robert, I am earnestly looking forward to an answer on the solar eclipse
> issue, studying the geocentric satellite issue, and figuring out what this
> darn Coriolis force is. One poster on BA told me the g view needed an
extra
> rule to explain the Coriolis force, while the h view needed nothing as it
> was a natural consequence of a rotating body.
>
> I have been in contact with Richard Elmendorf about the claims for the
> Foucault Pendulum made by BA posters. He sent me a letter which I
received
> this evening. Mr. Elemendorf believes it is possible Noah's ark was made
> out of concrete and makes an interesting case for that, but he also
> thoroughly refutes the BA on the Foucault Pendulum, as I expected. Mr.
> Elmendorf doesn't have a computer so one just has to write him. He is
very
> good about writing back. He types his letters on an old-school
typewriter.
>
> > Pax Christi,
> >
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > PS: Do you know of any other GC fora?
>
> No, but several of us may link together that way for awhile. My email is
> GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx Contact me because I'd like to stay in touch.
> Marshall Hall's website is interesting, as is Dr. Bouw's, but they are the
> only other places I know to go.
>
> In geostasis,
>
> Gary Shelton
>
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Fw: Last call
