[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:30:02 -0800 (PST)
Robert,
I hope you have better luck with him then we have. We have already given him
5 reasons which at least with a few of them he said he was going to sddress
with some charts and or somthing. The others he just stated he did not like the
reasons. He has up to this point just blown us off altogether or ignored any
reasons given him......but perhaps he is just realy busy now and will come back
soon or when he can...I hope... :-) .......Personaly i dont think it will
matter which ones you give him... but maybe he likes you better then us....:-)
sungenis@xxxxxxx wrote:
Gents,
I think Regner is waiting for my five evidences of geocentrism. If you
remember, I offered the book Galileo Was Wrong to him for free as an answer to
his original challenge, but he refused to read it. He wanted five evidences of
geocentrism instead. I gave him one (concerning the Michelson-Morley
experiment) and asked that he answer that one first, and if he did an honest
job, I would send him four others. He refused that offer also, and insisted
that I send him five challenges at once. I conceded and told him I would send
four other challenges. I was out of town when these exchanges were taking
place, so I could not add the other four challenges then, but I will work on it
this week.
If any of you have any suggestions or comments before I put together these five
challenges, please let me know.
Robert Sungenis
-----Original Message-----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 4:30 am
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Thats ok Jack, but don't lose the faith, its just a different battleground.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 6:44 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Thank you Philip,
This is not a subject I followed and therefore know nothing about. However I
will consult those who know more about it than me - Neville perhaps or the
Roberts'.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
Repeat for Jack and Allen;
Regner asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning
bicycle wheel, if you try to turn it sideways..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.
Newtons laws are demonstrable and satisfactory for dealing with motion, if
not the reason why, at least the properties as experienced.
Hold the axel firmly with wheel edge in front of your nose whilst the wheel
is spinning rapidly. Now try to rotate your body.
A spinning flywheel is stable and resists angular rotation around its axis of
rotation . You can test this principle as Regner suggested. .
The bicycle depends on this principle to work.
A bicycle wheel that is suspended vertically and powered to rotate
continuously, with the axel pointing east- west. in a frame having no
resistance to rotation in any direction , (set in gymbol bearings) will
maintain it orientation vertically for ever, except , because the earth is
rotating one revolution per day, this frame will not turn with the motion of
the earth.
Consequently if you are looking at this wheel edge on from the North, you
will see the frame with the wheel turn slowly clockwise , making one complete
turn per day. If it was vertical on 12 oclock at noon, it will be pointing at
1 an hour later, and so on.
If the world was not rotating with any angular movement, this flywheel would
remain in the vertical orientation .
We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep
running away from it? Long range ballistic missile computers using inertial
guidance systems must program in this rotation to stay on course..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 7:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?
uh yea ..im at a loss here to phil........how does that prove HC again..?
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
#AOLMsgPart_2_865185a9-32bc-420a-bd6c-de26c6f6a33b DIV { MARGIN: 0px} OK
Philip,
What's the relevance, please explain?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Regner concedes?
If Regner conceded and accepted that the geocentric proof of geocentrism
Jack asked Paul?
Jack, Regner never will concede such a thing..
He asked the question if you all remember, what happens to a spinning bicycle
wheel, if you try to turn it sideways..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system.
I told you all this yesterday..
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate.. I'm hoping
Robert with GWW can do that.
Philip..
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 4/11/2007
11:05 AM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.21/1109 - Release Date: 4/11/2007
11:05 AM
---------------------------------
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
Other related posts:
