[geocentrism] Points 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 02:07:57 +0000 (GMT)
Further to my promise to answer Robert's mammoth posting regarding the Apollo
feasibility paper, I have had a chance today to look at it. Rather than present
my own monster posting, I thought it better to break it down into a number of
points, with others to follow, God willing, at a later date.
I therefore respond to the numbers above as follows:
#1
[RB] re: Fig. 1
[RB] Fig.1 oversimplifies the Earth-Sun HC model. If you want to compare the GC
and HC viewpoints, the spinning (sic) Earth can't be ignored.
[NJ] Of course it can?t be ignored ? if I want to compare GC and HC viewpoints.
But GC and HC viewpoints are equivalent in an acentric cosmology and cannot
therefore be considered different. I am actually comparing a heliocentric model
with a Biblical model. I.e., an HC model with a GEOSTATIC model. In the
Biblical model, the World does NOT rotate.
[RB] In Fig. 1 the orbital period of the Earth is 365.25 days CCWise and the
motion of the Earth's center (or centre)is Right to Left or CCWise. The Sun
would have the same CCW period but L to R, as seen in Fig 1, from the Earth's
center. The Earth's spin should also be shown as CCWise in Fig. 1, with a
period of 24 hours. The surface point facing the Sun (local noon)would be
moving L to R, so the Sun would be seen moving R to L,CW, with period of 24
hrs, due to the spinning motion alone. THE OBSERVED MOTION OF THE SUN SEEN FROM
THE EARTH IN THE HC MODEL IS THE COMBINED EFFECT OF ORBITING AND ROTATION.
[NJ] Agreed, but irrelevant. You are missing the point of Figs. 1 & 2. They are
there to highlight the ASSUMED equivalence of a heliocentric ?solar system?
with a geocentric one. This is a source of immense confusion, since the two
models are only dynamically equivalent if the World rotates on an ?axis? in
BOTH of them.
[RB] The total angular velocity, W, of the Sun seen from the Earth's surface is
the sum of the angular velocities of orbit and spin: Let CW be +, CCW be - W =
Worb + Wspin = -2pi/365.25days + 2pi/24 hours = 2pi/24 *(1 - 1/365.25) in
rad/hour This is positive, so the Sun moves L to R as seen from the rotating HC
Earth, not R to L. This also shows the difference between the solar and
sidereal day....
[NJ] You could just say that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
[RB] The GC view of Fig. 2 shows the incorrect direction for the Sun's motion
as observed, and also incorrect for the HC predicted direction as viewed from
Earth.
[NJ] No, you are wrong. As you say above, the World?s angular velocity about
its ?axis? is greater than the angular velocity of the Sun about the World. The
principle of equivalence can only be explained this way. Sidereal period and
(mean) solar period still both tally, because the Sun is a little further (~ 4
mins, in terms of World rotation) around its orbit of the World.
#3
[RB] "in a geocentric system it would be acting very briefly on 3 or 4
occasions" The Moon's gravity acts very briefly and occasionally in a GC system
???? How so???
[NJ] Because the Moon is whizzing around at 61,364 mph. It is not going to be
exerting any influence for long. (By the way, one question mark will suffice.)
#4
[RB] "the final speed of 27,580 mph assumes that all 3rd stage fuel has been
burnt and so leaves nothing for future maneuvering" The 3rd stage of the Saturn
V was left behind in Earth orbit and has no relevance to the Moon trip. The
command module includes solid fuel thruster rockets that allow mid-course
corrections and retro rockets that slow the space probe for lunar orbit
insertion (neither earth or lunar orbits are shown in Fig. 3 or 4). The
orbiting command module launches the Lunar Lander, which has similar solid
state rockets, to make the final descent to the Moon. WARNING: all this is
alleged by NASA.
[NJ] There is no need to be facetious. The point you make here is good. I will
take it on board.
#5
[RB] re: reference 13 Why is rocket data from a medical school preferred to
NASA?
[NJ] Because you will find some very good physicists working in medical
schools. Besides which, there were several sites that I researched; not just
one. They all gave very much the same data. You should not be surprised that I
prefer sources other than NASA.
#6
[RB] "From this analysis it is clear that, if geocentrism is accepted, then
safely landing on the Moon is impossible... " From the analysis so far it's
very much less than clear - a huge leap of disbelief - why a Moon landing is
impossible... Has some evidence or logic been omitted from the document? Does
this refer to the rest of the document?
[NJ] I define ?geocentrism? as a geocentric and geostationary cosmology. Is it
still ?very much less than clear??
Neville.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Points 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6
