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!