[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 02:20:55 -0600
Cheryl,
It's been awhile since I read the lengthy link, though it is definitely
excellent. I actually forgot this point that Sungenis made that you copied
here. It is a pretty good point about "Hubble's Constant". Use the old one
and things are moving faster than 'c'. Hmmm. Interesting and very
convenient sounding.
As for the taking pictures of the earth, why would they? I mean, in a
contest between two equal rivals, sure, you take the pictures. But in the
geo/helio battle, what has the other side got to gain? I can kind of see
their attitude. It's superior sounding, yes, but reasonable, given the fact
that they have relativity to fall back on.
Besides, Cheryl, it's probably easier to take the attitude approach than to
explain all about relativity and why they couldn't prove the case either way
for every time somebody presses them with this "filming the earth" question.
You think?
Gary Shelton
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:08 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> Gary -- Wow, that was interesting.
>
> This quote from Hoge: "At any rate, don't you think it's a rather
> remarkable coincidence that the alleged "inertial force from the stars"
just
> happens to precisely balance the gravity of the earth at exactly the same
> altitude at which a satellite would orbit the earth once a day if the
earth
> rotated? Doesn't that raise a red flag for you? It sure does for me."
>
>
> And this from Sungenis: "
>
> By the way, Hubble's constant used to tell us that the galaxies were
> receding away less than the speed of light. But that was when we could
only
> see about 500 or so megaparsecs into the universe. Now that we can see 500
> gigaparsecs into the universe, Hubble's constant means that the galaxies
are
> receding at hundreds of times the speed of light. But if the galaxies are
> receding at the speed of light or faster, then that means we are moving at
> the speed of light or faster. Obviously, that is not the case. It's no
> surprise, then, that Hubble's "constant" is being constantly revised.
> Speaking of Hubble, did you ever wonder why the Hubble space telescope
doesn
> 't take time-lapse photography of the earth to prove that the earth is
> rotating? A curious lacuna for you to answer.
>
> Hoge's reply: I figure it's either part of a vast government conspiracy
to
> dupe people into believing that the earth rotates, or else NASA has better
> things to do with its resources than try to prove to the six living
> geocentrists that they're wrong. Besides, weather satellites take
time-lapse
> pictures of the earth all the time and that doesn't prove anything to you.
> Why would it be any different if the pictures were taken by Hubble?
>
>
>
> Gary -- do you think this exchange is edited? Why doesn't Sungenis ever
> answer? (i.e. do you think he provided good rebuttals that were cut out
of
> the exchange?) What's published just shows Sungenis just dropping the
> argument and moving on to something else.
>
> Do you or anyone else have answers to these things? Can, in fact, the
> weather satellites document the rotating of the earth? Once again, my
> understanding of logic, common sense and human nature causes me to be
blown
> away by the nonchalant attitude of the helio people (such as Hoge) that
> they don't need to document or prove anything with timelapse photos from
> "their" satellites or astronauts, even if they (the helio's) could easily
do
> so. They reason their position is so obvious, so establsihed, so
evident --
> even though an admitted theory -- that if they could prove it easily they
> still wouldn't even bother to do so because it's just "not necessary."
>
> I realize the point you've all been making that no matter which one is
> moving, it will appear that the other is moving from either vantage point
> (i.e. the moon, Hubble wherever that is, or Voyager, weather satellite,
> whatever). But why don't they offer that as an explanation for why they
> don't attempt to document? Rather, they say they don't attempt to
document
> by eye-witness or time-lapse photos because it's "not necessary."
>
> See my point? Cheryl
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> > Cheryl,
> >
> > I have provided the following link before. But it is a very good link
to
> a
> > heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis. Mr. Hoge
firmly
> > believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary and polar)
> > solidly prove the earth is turning. Mr. Sungenis denies that.
> >
> > You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular debate, but I
> > don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
> >
> > That link is:
> > http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
> >
> > Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable indeed.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Gary Shelton
> >
> > Gary Shelton
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:41 AM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
> >
> >
> > > Philip -- If I need to do more homework, just say so. I don't want
you
> > all
> > > to have to spoonfeed me everything. I sure do appreciate all you're
> > > teaching me, pulling me up to speed really fast. Hopefully when
you're
> > > through filling me in, I can have something good to contribute in
> return.
> > >
> > > Thanks again. Cheryl
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
Other related posts:
