[geocentrism] Re: Last call
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 01:03:35 -0500
> 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:
