[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
"We have to allow the heliocentrists their massive distances..."
We should not unnecessarily concede a single point to heliocentrists
because it could backfire later on.
I think they have the edge of the universe at 16 BILLION light years away
now which is probably far enough to have people wondering how
those stars could get around nightly. And if people don't have a problem with
that
then the next calculation we will see is 160 TRILLION light years.
We don't "HAVE TO" allow any exaggerations or falsehoods, and shouldn't.
And since at the core this is a religious battle, pushing God out 16 BILLION
light years, the further the better, effectively gets rid of him in people's
minds.
Not many people know or understand this: You cannot have true/correct
knowledge
without true/correct morality and you cannot have true/correct morality
without true/correct religion. But they will not teach people
that in universities ( UNI = one way of thinking ).
Respectfully,
Bernie
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
Oh dear, oh dear. Has no one but Paul been reading my earlier posts. I told you
clearly that parallax has nothing to do with this argument. And to forget about
Polaris. We have to allow the heliocentrists their massive distances, but it
really does not matter!
Paul sees it, and has done for a while. My guess is that many of the silent
ones have seen it, too, but without any comments it is difficult to tell.
Real or apparent, star trails are a consequence of rotation about an axis over
a certain period. There is no doubt at all about this.
The question, in its simplest terms, is: Is there rotation of stars about the
north ecliptic pole and south ecliptic pole over one tropical year, or is there
not?
Please read the updated Celestial Poles page (with 2 new diagrams and updated
text) and re-watch the video.
This is very important and EVERYONEs contribution would be appreciated.
I will not allow such an important point to be dismissed out of hand, because
if I do then there will be no purpose in continuing this forum. Steven and I
would simply be wasting our time and energy.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:11:50 +1000
Re this thread, and Regner's question, I have to withdraw my previous
statement that observations of the rotations of the North or South stars or any
stars for that matter, are evidence of support for geocentrism.
One would have to considerably reduce the alleged and accepted distances
these stars are from the solar system, for this hypotheses to have any value. I
see no evidence that would convince me that these distances are wrong.
I apologise for any distraction I caused. It was fun though, as I was forced
to get with the facts, which I now want to forget.
I continue to hold to my original stated position in support of geocentrism,
namely that the laws of Newton hold true but are incomplete without the effect
of an aether being included. Therefore I do not have any facts as such, but
merely a hypotheses , in support of geocentrism.
Philip.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
