[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

  • From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 03:27:04 +0000 (GMT)

I believe that now is a good time to move this discussion on a little.
 
We are seemingly all agreed that the Bible informs us the the World is fixed 
and does not move in any way. For those of you who will say, "ah, but fixed 
with respect to what," I would reply, with respect to the potentially infinite 
heaven in which God resides. That is why God likens the World to a footstool 
for His throne. He is telling us that the World and the third heaven are fixed 
with respect to each other.
 
This is the next big step: we do not need to bother about relative motions. We 
can go back to the absolute space, as per Isaac Newton. Einstein's confusion 
just evaporates.
 
Philip, your comment here:
 
"In the HC system the moon recedes from the earths rotation. Which gives it a 
lazy 28day orbit of the earth. This naturally would allow NASA to catch up with 
it easily, and it would have to be from an easterly launch as they did. If we 
stop the earth which we do, then this reverses everything. Suddenly the moon 
has to be moving from the east , slower than the sun, (radially) but having 
enormous speed, as calculated by Neville. and it would indeed present a problem 
from the HC point of view.. "
 
... is excellent. This is the thing about passing the baton in a relay race. If 
the next runner is running toward you, then there is going to be a slight 
problem.
 
Philip then says,
 
"And this is where I have to question Nevilles attitude to the points he made, 
not for truthfullness, or accuracy, but for being incomplete. Neville you are 
sidestepping an important observed fact. Relative motions as observed from 
earth. We have to accept that the force equivalent of a rotating earth exists. 
Rob states, and I am inclined to accept** his explanation, as it is the only 
one thats presented, that there is a force of the rotating plenum towards the 
west. which carries all the cosmos towards the west. "
 
I'm not sidestepping the force issue. I'm just taking this one step at a time. 
But let me ask you something ... if the plenum is exerting some force on 
material objects, and this force is from east to west, then why does it not 
affect the atmosphere?
 
Neville.


Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[ Yes. If I have you right Neville, you mean that under the HC system we (thats 
us) must consider the reality of the Moons real velocity, not the assumed one 
according to their 28 day figure]

You continue: . 
In the HC case, the Moon is going eastward. It must be really moving. 

[ I got confused here. I think you meant that in the HC system the moon was 
going east, but you did not mean by "really moving" to indicate really fast. In 
the HC system the moon recedes from the earths rotation. Which gives it a lazy 
28day orbit of the earth. This naturally would allow NASA to catch up with it 
easily, and it would have to be from an easterly launch as they did. If we stop 
the earth which we do, then this reverses everything. Suddenly the moon has to 
be moving from the east , slower than the sun, (radially) but having enormous 
speed, as calculated by Neville. and it would indeed present a problem from the 
HC point of view.. ]

Neville: 
The reality is that it must be moving somehow. If the World is stationary, then 
what we see of the Moon is what we get.

And this is where I have to question Nevilles attitude to the points he made, 
not for truthfullness, or accuracy, but for being incomplete. Neville you are 
sidestepping an important observed fact. Relative motions as observed from 
earth. We have to accept that the force equivalent of a rotating earth exists. 

Rob states, and I am inclined to accept** his explanation, as it is the only 
one thats presented, that there is a force of the rotating plenum towards the 
west. which carries all the cosmos towards the west. If this were so, then 
whilst all the inertial systems on "apollo" might indicate motion catching up 
with a slowly receding moon, it is in fact caught up in and recieving a contra 
motion towards the west, which slows it down annd actually reverses its 
expected movement so that it meets the moon at a reasonable speed. 

What is observed, is not what they get... Although all the calculations will 
balance... Do not they say that they can or do use the geocentric model for 
navigation?

Thus a moon landing does in no way destroy the geocentric position or the 
Bibles credibility, any more than does the stationary satellite. This latter 
though, has me worried.

**I cannot grasp in a practical way the effect of Robs rotating plenum that 
duplicates on a stationary body, the centrifugal force observed upon a rotating 
one..Consider from a GC system. If we accelerated the the stationary satellite 
into motion, either way, It would have two "centrifugal forces" as we must 
presume the plenum force is still there... Perhaps that is my answer.. 
relativity? 

if one looks at my mental exercise I gave in yesterdays post, re shifting a 
perfectly active polar orbit with a 24hour period, 90 degrees so that its orbit 
is equatorial 24 hour, and in the direction of the earths alleged rotation. 

I said then, What stops it rotating... and what keeps it up there ? The only 
possible explanation can be that as the orbit inclines towards its 90 degree 
point the plenum takes an increasingly stronger grip of it and slows it down. 
to a stop. with the added outward centrepetal force, which I said must be of 
the opposite polarity of the polar position. I suppose I might put it 
geometrically that it is moving from an axis of earth centred centrifugal force 
to an axis of cosmic centrifugal force. 

Coming back to the polar orbit, 
You geometricians may be able to do some sums to show that the polar orbit goes 
through transformations of both forces as the satellite moves from zero above 
the poles to 90 degrees above the equator.. and down to the other pole. I can 
see it all in my head, but I just do not have the ability or mathmatical 
education to put it in to your correct terminology. Which is only a jargon in 
any case. 

Philip.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Dr. Neville Jones 
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?


Hi Robert.

You said, "From a Biblical standpoint: In the HC case the World rotates 
eastward, so the cosmos appears to rotate westward as seen from Earth."

How it "appears" is not the point. We are dealing with the actual motion of the 
Moon under each system. In the HC case, the Moon is going eastward. It must be 
really moving. The reality is that it must be moving somehow. If the World is 
stationary, then what we see of the Moon is what we get.

You further said, "From a scientific standpoint:
1- NASA claims that the Apollo trips started by inserting the spacecraft
first into Earth orbit, so the direction the Moon was moving at launch time
is irrelevant..... if you believe NASA.
2- The initial direction of all American rockets at lift-off is 90 degrees -
straight up...... if you believe NASA."

They are pointing straight up, yes, but they do not go straight up. They go 
eastwardly, over the Atlantic. You can plainly see this curve, even a short 
time after takeoff. They were placed into orbits that were in the same 
orientation as the World's alleged rotation - eastwardly. The Moon is going in 
this same direction in the HC model. It does not somehow change its direction 
when in LEO, nor does it go "straight" for the Moon. It has to spiral.

Yours in Christ,

Neville.


Robert Bennett wrote:
Dr. Jones,

From Biblical Topics/ "Do the alleged Apollo Moon landings conflict with the
Bible?"

case, the World is stationary and the cosmos
rotates westwardly. Therefore, to rendezvous with the Moon, a rocket would
need to be launched eastwardly in the heliocentric model and westwardly in
the Biblical model.>
............................

From a Biblical standpoint:
In the HC case the World rotates eastward, so the cosmos appears to rotate
westward as seen from Earth.
In the Biblical (GC) case, the World is stationary and the cosmos does
rotate westward as seen from Earth.
Therefore, there is no difference in the preferred direction of launch -
westward - between HC and GC/Biblical models.

From a scientific standpoint:
1- NASA claims that the Apollo trips started by inserting the spacecraft
first into Earth orbit, so the direction the Moon was moving at launch time
is irrelevant..... if you believe NASA.
2- The initial direction of all American rockets at lift-off is 90 degrees -
straight up...... if you believe NASA.

Pax Christi,

Robert

---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! 




                
---------------------------------
 ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  


Other related posts: