[geocentrism] Re: Question begging

Paul said, to Allen 
"You may care to plot on the same coordinates, the data given by geocentric 
sources to see how a disordered universe behaves."  

there are two errors or presumptions here Paul.

1.    Your presumption that the geocentric position is disordered.

2.    And your presumption that the formula presented would act any different 
if used in the geocentric situation. 

From my last comment to Allen you ignored my opinion of the aether rotation 
which gives the "illusion" of a rotating and moving world, in a real rotating 

It has been said many times by Neville and others, that one can chose either 
position, GC/HC and provided the corrections were made, to conform with the 
base chosen the mathmatics would come up with the same answer. 

I know what Allen is TRYING  to sayand that is not wrong. It has been said so 

In free space if two bodies A and B are coming together to collide at 100mph, 
no one can say what the real motions are out of an infinite number of 
variations between, A is stationary, moving towards  B, or moving away from B 
and/or B is stationary, moving toward A or moving away from A. There is no 
fixed point of reference.  Thus one is assumed. I who live on A can chose my 
point as static. You on B can chose the opposite. Nothing changes 
mathmatically, it wil be a 100mph collision. But the reality is a presumption 
in both cases, and therefore not a proven reality.

You speak of order within an assumed "parameter", based upon what you consider 
ideal in a universe that evolved from nothing. I can "assume" if you like, that 
the universe was designed by an intelligence, which if it desired could make 
the world stationary, and the rest of the ordered universe comply with natural 
law within that framework. 

That the universe is as modern cosmologists describe it is reasonably assumed 
on the basis of their belief in the sun being the centre of the solar system. I 
acknowledge that. 

However you must admit, that if the solar system as it is was centred around 
the earth, and not the sun, then their model of the rest of the universe would 
be wrong.

Therefore it only remains for us to present two models alone, geocentric or 
heliocentric in exclusion of any other cosmos, the solar system standing alone. 
 For simplicity we may put all the planets sun and moons on the same plane 
represented by a disc. One disc is on a shaft through the sun and the other on 
a shaft through the earth..These we call the G main disc and the H main disc. 

Mounted on this disc we have secondary discs centred on their orbital centres 
for planets around the sun and moons around the planets. 

Set every thing in motion, according to what is seen from earth, The H disc is 
revolving once in 365 days. The G disc is revolving in 24 hours. I am ignoring 
for simplicity again the need for certain discs to move vertically for seasons. 

As I showed in the example above the observer cannot tell which of scenarios is 
the correct or true one. 

It merely remains for the geocentrist to explain how your orbital laws, in 
regard to sun and moon still remain in force. 

This we do by calling upon the existence of the disc as a reality. This is the 
aether. A condition of space which effects everything material, and 
aetherical..  (fields) The secondary discs are distortions of the aether caused 
by the presence of the central mass, which actually is the cause of the 
gravitiic and orbital laws. 

The laws remain because we allow you to use figures in your calculations that 
are relative to your base line rather than recalculating them to the relative 
motion of the disc (aether) You do this all the time by calling it your "frame 
of reference" as I alluded to in the collision example above. 

From here we get out of the G v H debate, and put it back in the realms of pure 
science. The aether is still a valid concept debated in science, if for no 
other reason than that certain phenomena involving wave theory of EMR cannot be 
explained without recourse to it.

So we can now proceed with the discussion you called for so much , the aether. 

Unfortunately, my references may be equivalent to those available to the Wright 
brothers during their great venture. 

Keep this on the back burner till you have digested our absolute probables... 
and I'll get you some aether.   


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 3:36 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging

  Philip M

  May I compliment you on an excellent summing up of this issue. I trust that 
my support will not dilute it.

  I'd like to add a few things also if I may. To --

  Bernie B and Marc V

  -- you are labouring under a mis-aprehension concerning zero gravity at an 
altitude of 22,000 miles (give or take). The acceleration of gravity extends to 
infinity and can be calculated from the product of the Universal Gravitational 
Constant and the two masses divided by the square of the distance between the 
centres of gravity of the two masses -- in maths terms -

  a = Gm1m2/d^2

  Secondly, if you go to 
you will find on line calculators for the above expression under Newton's Law 
of Gravity. To calculate orbital periods for any two bodies, just below that, 
you'll find Kepler's third law. To use these calculators, you'll need certain 
parameters and these you can find at http://www.nineplanets.org/data1.html and 
http://www.nineplanets.org/data.html. Remember that the height above sea level 
means nothing here, it is the distance from the centre of gravity that you 
need. Everything you need can be found to calculate orbits for any satellite of 
Earth (or other body if you are interested) on these two sites.

  If you can be bothered, you might find it constructive to generate a list of 
orbital periods for a range of values of say, from 100 miles out to the Moon 
and plot them on a piece of graph paper. You'll see that a regular curve will 
be shown -- just the way you would expect an ordered universe to behave. You 
may care to plot on the same coordinates, the data given by geocentric sources 
to see how a disordered universe behaves.

  You can also plug in the values quoted for a given orbiting object, from the 
shuttle to the Moon, and verify that the values obtained are as quoted. You 
will of course find that the orbital period obtained for the Moon will not be 
the 24h 52m that you observe, but rather the 27d 7h 43m (av) sidereal period 
which of course is different from the time between successive New Moon 
appearances which is 29d 12h 44m (av).

  Have fun!

  Paul D

  Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.13/725 - Release Date: 17/03/2007 
12:33 PM

Other related posts: