[geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.

Gary,

A review of your BA dialog follows. Hope this helps the next time you
venture into no man's land.

...........................................

Edited transcript of Gary at the Bad As site:


GS: ......and the air, well, it cannot have any ability to "push" or "carry"
the plane because it is a gas.

BA: Where do you get the notion that a gas cannot push or carry an object?
That is what aerodynamics is all about!

RB: Yes, a misstep, Gary

BA: .....The air inside a fast moving train moves along with the train
(unless it is accelerating), and if you jumped right up you would land on
the same spot (not hit the rear wall). You maintain the train's and your
original velocity even when you left the floor. This is also the case with
Earth's atmosphere.

RB: Yes,if the plane is in inertial (straight-line unaccelerated flight).
but you don't land on the same spot if the plane makes a turn.
But the air parcels in the atmosphere have a net circular motion, so they
are always turning. So the straight line train motion is not a valid analog
to the atmospheric motion. then how to explain this continuous CIRCULAR
motion of the atmosphere in the HC view?

BA: Otherwise, you hint at having the common misconception that you must
apply a constant force to keep an object in motion.

RB: again a misstep

alternate BA: and RB: here........

A) What's the cause of the coriolis effect?
 The rotation of the plenum

B) How do birds fly?
A net upward force with each wing beat, caused by vertical pressure
differences across the wing

C) What causes the winds?
Differences in pressure between 2 air parcels (temperature and density are
equivalent sources)

E) You imply that air doesn't apply pressure, so how do I feel the winds?
Air does create pressure

F) Explain stellar parallax.
See http://users.rcn.com/robert.bennett/GeocentrismRJBv1.doc

G) How far away is the Moon? The Sun? How far is it to the stars? The
nearest galaxies?
240 Kmiles, 93 Mmiles, which one?, which one?

BA: Even if your ideas on the nature of fluid dynamics, Newtonian mechanics
and the non-existence of viscosity were correct, how do they help your
Geocentrist cause when they equally apply to the atmosphere of every other
planet?

RB: The current laws of gravity, inertia, thermodynamics and statistical
mechanics are sufficient to explain the N to S atmospheric circulation but
insufficient to explain the Earth's total atmospheric circulation, including
the E-W rotation in an HC model (surface rotation at equator > 1000 mph),
while GC is sufficient to explain the E-W anomaly (surface rotation
everywhere = 0) . The other planets with atmospheres exhibit the effects of
absolute rotation wrt earth; their patterns require detailed knowledge of
the plenum's effects on each.

GS: Now we know that nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum, and
that, that speed is 299,792,458 m/s.
This gives us an upper limit for the edge of the universe, a sphere which
has an equator equal to the distance light can travel in one day (because
nothing can travel faster than that.)

RB: But what if light's speed increases with distance from earth?  An aether
with greater tension, perhaps.  There's no proof otherwise, only
extrapolation of light's solar system speed to the whole universe.  This
doesn't even disagree with relativity.

GS:  It also means that there is a huge conspiracy in the space industry of
all the space going nations to hide this all. As you can see, once you start
trying to apply a Geocentric and non-rotating Earth idea to the universe you
either hve to redefine the entirety of physics as we know it, or the idea
very quickly falls apart on you.

RB: Don't get carried away. The HC and SR views are Satan's work - it's
gullible man who turns from God's Word and listens to Satan. The conspiracy
isn't NASA (cover-up of mistakes notwithstanding) but the plot of the
legions of demons.
"My name is Legion, for we are many"

BA: One peculiar thing though (out of many peculiar things). Looking at this
from a geocentrist point of view, the only stars that could be described as
moving around the Earth would be those on the celestial equator. When the
paths of all other stars are examined, their centers of motion are
positioned somewhere other than the Earth. As stars are located farther from
the celestial equator, their diurnal motion becomes less and their centers
of revolution are farther and farther from Earth. And in the case of stars
near the north and south celestial poles, which show very little diurnal
motion at all, their centers of revolution are very distant indeed.

RB: This is the Ptolemaic model, not the current Tychonian model, where the
stars are centered on the Sun.

BA: Case in point. Let's look at the "orbit" of Polaris by examining a
6-hour time exposure of the "North Star". This star will describe an arc
that is 1/4 of a circle whose diameter is 1 degree, 28 minutes. The center
of Polaris's revolution is obviously 44 minutes from the diameter of this
circle. And this center of revolution is a long way from anything on Earth,
including Earth's center of mass.

RB: This incorrectly assumes GC asserts spherical rotation about the Earth's
center. GC model says the rotation is cylindrical, about the polar axis as
extended indefinitely into space.

BA: Objects need to have at least one other mass in order to establish an
orbit. Otherwise there's a translational velocity, but no orbit since
there's no two-body system.
Therefore the paths of >99% of all stars demonstrate that the concept of the
stars revolving around the Earth is false. And, for me, that's enough
thought about geocentrism.

RB: This shows that Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold for the stars -
there's no central object for each stellar circle.  The plenum laws must
provide for the observed rotation.

BA: Now, according to Newton?s Laws, less massive objects orbit more massive
objects.

RB:  No, objects rotate around their common center of mass.  Integrity
requires that all objects in the universe be included in computing the
center of mass.

BA: As with its predecessor the relativistic geocentric position completely
fails to provide any kind of explanation for the observed daily paths of the
stars.

RB: The observed paths are the effects of the plenum acting on the objects
in the plenum. Locally the plenum is approximated by Newton's laws. In space
outside the solar system, the effect is not Newtonian, but has not been
modeled yet.

Maksutov wrote:
The point of the OP was reconciling observed data (daily paths of the stars)
with claims of geocentists. So far there has been no data offered to provide
this reconciliation by either the "old school" geocentrists or by the
relativistic geocentrists.
The point, once again, is that both Earth-centered views purport that
everything in the universe revolves around the Earth. The daily paths of the
stars refute this.

RB: New DATA is not offered by GC but a new GC INTERPRETATION of the diurnal
star paths due to the effects of the (presently sub-visible) plenum, which
fills all space and has visible effects - like the star paths - on celestial
motion. These plenum effects are known to mainline science as the laws of
gravity, inertia and Mach's principle. The cause of gravitation is not the
gravitating bodies themselves, as Mr. Newton thought, but the plenum in
which the bodies are immersed. It is this plenum which generates the
attractive force between bodies proportional to their masses and inversely
to their separation squared.

GS: This might be a good time to point out that the stars aren't part of the
solar sytem as is commonly defined. I was specifically contrasting a local
geocentric model, where the sun and planets revolve around Earth, which in
turn is not itself static, to a universal one, which is the one you're
discussing.

RB: The plenum seems to separate into three domains with different
intensities/strengths of gravity and rotational inertia.
1- the deep space zone of the stars and galaxies, which is dominated by
rotational inertia
2- the middle zone of the Milky Way stars, which are subject to an annual N
to S oscillation (the seasons)
3- the near zone of the solar system, where gravity and rotational inertia
are balanced, to produce the various orbits of Sun, Moon and planets.

Pax Christi, Gary

Robert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary Shelton
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 8:30 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
>
>
> Cheryl,
>
> You need a good dose of Bad Astronomy.  The folks there will
> gladly clarify
> any relative motion questions you have.  But I suggest you browse
> through a
> couple of topics that I participated in last year.  You will notice I
> thought like yourself in the beginning.
>
> The first is a topic that I actually started, unbelievable as
> that seems to
> me now....
>
> "Relative Motion Falls Apart When applied to Planes"
> http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16726&postdays=0
> &postorder=asc&start=0
>
> The next is a topic begun by a devout acentrist athiest named Maksutov.
>
> "Thinking about geocentrism"
> http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=350240&highlight=#350240
>
> I did not agree with these people but I could not counter their superior
> academic arguments.  Still, it was interesting taking the battle to "their
> turf".  I personally believe that they made some good points and
> we need to
> be able to answer all of them, just as the creationists have a counter to
> every single evolution premise put forward.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Shelton
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:31 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
>
>
> > A friend told me the whole moon landing thing was staged in Las Vegas,
> that
> > the film crew all had untimely deaths later, and they were pacified with
> > hookers and parties during hte shoot.
> >
> > If they did go to the moon I'd like to know why not one single astronaut
> has
> > commented about observing the earth turning.  I realize that it takes 12
> > hours for one side of the earth to completely move around, but it would
> > still be apparent to anyone looking that the earth was turning.
> >
> > If you went to the moon and believed the earth was turning, wouldn't you
> > want to brag about having seen it with your own two eyes?
> >
> > Cheryl
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
>
>
>


Other related posts: