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
And Bernie, we as a group cannot even
demonstrate one true correct religion!
Philip.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:51 AM
Subject:
[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
"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,
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
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1097 - Release Date:
28/10/2007 1:58 PM
