[geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
- From: <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentric" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:40:11 -0400
I know it isn't possible to find a good analogy, but try to understand with the
exemple of 2 trains on parallel tracks close to one another; only one train is
moving. Let's say you are on one of those trains and you can't see the ground;
neither can you sense any motion on the train you are on. You cannot find out
which train is moving by throwing a ball at the other train because no matter
which train is moving the ball will bounce back and fall on the same spot on
the train floor you are on. you can replace the ball by a laser beam and you
will get the same results.
With HC, your train is moving and with GC it is the other train (the Moon) that
is moving.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
Sent: 27 juillet 2007 11:40
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
Marc V
I'm not sure that your thought will fly. There is a fundamental difference in
that in the HC model, the Earth is turning. The beam is fired, the reflectors
return the beam along the same path as it came, but as Neville points out, the
Earth will have rotated significantly in the 2 1/2 second (note -- NOT 4 1/2
seconds) of the round trip. In the GC model however, the beam will again return
along the same path as before but this time the Earth will not have rotated so
the beam returns to the source.
This doesn't change anything concerning the distance measuring operation of
course as the rotation was included in the calculations and the beam width
easily encompasses the rotation. If however, there were sufficient returned
photons to permit a determination of just which part of the returned cone of
photons was being detected -- cosine of the angle and all that -- then in
theory, it seems to me that Neville's hypothesis would indeed allow
determination that the Earth is indeed rotating |:-)
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: "marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentric <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 27 July, 2007 6:28:45 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
Paul wrote:
«Regarding Apollo and laser retro-reflectors. We've been this route previously
and my views are on record. I am however intrigued by your assertion that these
artifacts -- should they exist -- could be used to resolve the helio/geo
debate. Further, I am curious, not to mention -- it would seem -- ignorant.
Would you explain how this might be resolved? I've given it several seconds
consideration |[:-) but no solution suggests itself.»
Dr Neville answered:
«It's based upon the light taking (off the top of my head) about 2.25 seconds
to reach the reflector and the same amount of time to return. In this ~ 4.5
seconds, the World would have turned in the heliocentric scenario, but not the
geostationary one, and so the return signal would be very significantly
displaced from the firing location.»
It seems to me that the results would be similar in both HC and GC since the
significant motions of the Earth (in HC) and the little motion of the Moon
would be compensated by a significant motion of the Moon (in GC).
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
Sent: 25 juillet 2007 15:30
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
Me in blue.
-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:16:50 +0000 (GMT)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moving Earth Deception
Neville J
OK -- let's start again -- me in black!!!
Regarding Global Warming. I did not lambast it. What I said (and this is from
memory) was that all the evidence I had (short of seeing it) was that I was
inclined to believe that it was unreliable and I gave reasons why I believed
this to be so. Having now seen it (and a discussion panel assessment) I think
the producer was -- in a previous life -- a snake oil salesman, and I do not
shrink from my previous position.
The word "shrink" shows that you would subconsciencely view a change in your
position as some form of defeat. However, I respect the fact that you did
indeed watch the programme and evaluate it for yourself. If you maintain your
position, then fair enough.
I have no problem with that, if you are genuine. In the British tradition, our
laws are based on an adversarial tradition. It is entirely reasonable to carry
this into other arenas including whether or not the Earth moves. You make a
public statement, I question it, you counter. So long as I limit my attacks to
items which I assess as being unsupportable, and I supply a counter argument
with supporting evidence, I can't see that I have done anything which requires
apology. There is no enmity in my position -- I just think my position is
stronger than yours and that -- not only do I have the right to say so -- this
is the path to increased knowledge. Surely this latter should be the guiding
light for all of us?
True, but I am not hinting at any form of apology, so you probably read a
little too much into my comment.
'...never said that the chopper would touch down at the other side of
America...' No, that's true -- you didn't. But you did choose to support the
helicopter example (which did mention four hours and trans-USA) while ignoring
the example which I drew from your assertions. Deflection?
I ought to have qualified my support for the helicopter example. I do usually
pick up things like that, but could not be bothered I suppose.
Regarding Apollo and laser retro-reflectors. We've been this route previously
and my views are on record. I am however intrigued by your assertion that these
artifacts -- should they exist -- could be used to resolve the helio/geo
debate. Further, I am curious, not to mention -- it would seem -- ignorant.
Would you explain how this might be resolved? I've given it several seconds
consideration |[:-) but no solution suggests itself.
It's based upon the light taking (off the top of my head) about 2.25 seconds to
reach the reflector and the same amount of time to return. In this ~ 4.5
seconds, the World would have turned in the heliocentric scenario, but not the
geostationary one, and so the return signal would be very significantly
displaced from the firing location.
Neville.
Paul D
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts. Find out more.
Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all
webmail accounts. Find out more.
Other related posts:
