Philip, Comments inserted. Pax Christi, Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:28 AM > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings? > > > Hang on here.. Lets not our static earth confuse our rotating > earth thinking. > a vertical launch in aspect, will still have the horizontal > vector of the rotating earth in the direction toward the east. In > other words whilst rising vertically under power, it will be > sliding sideways towards the east. This would happen if you > pointed it east or west. Graphically on a graph it would be a > curved course. Remember my example of a ball falling from your > hand in a glass carriage,as it passed the station? Or didn't you > read it.? to you the ball fell in a straight line to your feet. > But to the person on the platform, it fell in a curve towards the > direction the carriage was travelling... > RB: In different reference systems, events are equivalent but not trajectories. > Boggles the mind doesn't it.. People in a concorde doing greater > than the speed of sound can still speak normally.. RB: relative to the vocal cords the air speed in the cabin is zero. (with the windows closed) Here where I > am near Brisbane, if the earth is rotating, am moving at near > twice the speed of sound and notice nothing... RB: the equivalence of inertial frames? You are also rotating upside down, in the land down under... ~(:^)> Does a radio > signal take longer to go round the world easterly than westerly? RB: Without question. The Sagnac effect shows this conclusively. Here's a Zealie site on the state of the art. http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/laser/ring_open.shtml Why haven't you heard of this experiment before in the scientific press? BECAUSE IT IS A SOLID DISPROOF OF RELATIVITY! btw - If we can ever put the distractions of chauvinism, hoaxes and inter denominational rants behind us, the Sagnac effect would be an excellent place to start a scientific GC defense and a deconstruction of HC/AC/Relativity. Maybe some day...... > > I think my polar launch just might answer some questions. > RB: ...or raise some new ones. > Phil > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary Shelton > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 6:59 PM > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings? > > > Dr. Jones, > > I don't have much to solidly contribute here, but I read your > piece and it > seems to me that you are saying that the rocket will run out of fuel > reaching the moon, or certainly that it won't have enough for the return > trip. And this is for either GC or HC, correct? Has this been > echoed in > other places for backup? > > Also, I assume when you say a rocket is launched "eastwardly" or > "westwardly" you are referring to an attitude change in said > rocket once it > is already launched, for all rockets launch straight upwards, correct? > > Further, I would ask you if the "launch direction" would be > predicated upon > the position of the moon at the time of intercept? I mean, in > the GC you > are saying we launch westwardly, since that is the direction of > the moon's > travel, but what if the moon were sunk way down in the east at > the instant > the decision were made to "aim" the rocket eastwardly or > westwardly? Would > it not be therefore possible to shoot a rocket eastwardly in our GC > worldview? And, conversely, shoot a rocket westwardly to meet a HC moon > sunk way down in the west? > > Would not the interception of the moon be a perfectly feasible > manner, in > either case, given enough fuel? > > Sincerely, > > Gary Shelton > > > > All, > > > > Can I have some more opinions on the alleged Apollo Moon landings and > whether they conflict with the Bible, please? So far, the > silence has been > deafening from some of you. > > > > Regards, > > > > Neville. > > > > -- > 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 > > > >