[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
- From: "philip madsen" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:13:55 +1000
Hands up those who knew , Watzing Matilde was informal for approximate?
I didn't... and not ashamed to admit it..
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:52 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
No, I meant what I wrote.
The tilde indicates 2 approximations :
a.. the unknown location of the reflector on the moon
b.. your reduction of the moon-earth distance to 1.000 light-second.
RB
-----
In experimental demonstrations, don't you allow for approximations, to
make the math simple.. We are not discussing the reality, but the possible
reality as I showed when I simplified it all to a theoretical firing range.
Sometimes I get the impression that you try to win/force an argument by
hiding behind what you hope are high sounding complex physical/mathmatical
formula and expressions. A true Scientist who wishes to teach, prepares his
"lesson" to the entry level he assesses the student to have. Not belittle their
feeble attempts at understanding nature by forever finding some weakness that
you can exploit for your ego perhaps? Perhaps you have difficulty at the
practical applied physics level of the engineer. You should not feel any shame
about that.. Christians understand..
[Robert Bennett] Are you stressed, Philip? Why so bitter? Calm down....
belly up to the bar - have a drink on me.
You approximated the Moon distance to 1.00 light-second, an error of 28%,
then corrected me for using an approximate value of 30 km, an error you
introduced.
If you didn't know ~ means "approximately equal to", well, now you do. Why
is learning something new a problem? Should I ignore misstatements because you
may be offended at correction?
Should I avoid using precise notation for the same reason?
I use what I've been trained to use. The alternative is to use arm-waving
qualitative rhetoric that never reduces to testable quantitative predictions.
(Sorry, Allen)
A suggestion: forego the remote psychoanalysis.
You could answer this perhap false impression of mine, by going back to
the ongoing debate you are having with Paul re orbits and the effect of
increasing and decreasing speed on the object, putting it in a simple circular
orbit situation, in terms that all here, be he priest or philosopher can
understand..
[Robert Bennett] V*V = GM/r is all you need to know => Newton's law for
free fall. It was Neville who first introduced this, not I.
Philip.
From: Robert Bennett
No, I meant what I wrote.
The tilde indicates 2 approximations :
a.. the unknown location of the reflector on the moon
b.. your reduction of the moon-earth distance to 1.000 light-second.
RB
-----
[Robert Bennett] Yes, If NASA could see and aim the laser directly at
the reflector, the beam would miss the Moon by ~ 30 km.
Yes, you mean of course miss the reflector, not the moon, coz the moons
bigger. And if they hit the reflector, theyd miss the reflection by 30 km..
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.6/938 - Release Date: 5/08/2007
4:16 PM
Other related posts:
