[geocentrism] Smart Galelleo
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shelton, Gary" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:41:16 +1000
Galileo was the only person ever to have been
> shown the torture chambers but not actually run through. If that's so,
it's
> certainly another historical wrinkle in the story.
Galelleo had friends in high places. He was also an able liar, and had no
reason to MARTYR HIMSELF FOR SCIENCE.
He was no Joan of Arc either.....
I have heaps of stuff about the Galelleo affair, from both sides. Fr. Roberts
book 1884, shows a time of much controversey over the geocentric
position....Whilst I believe the church did not openly apostasise till after
Vatican Council 2, it was well and truly infiltrated and subverted from within
much earlier, and the whole collapse can be laid at its failure to take on
Galelleo and the scientists head on, Augustines warning not withstanding.
Bellarmine, was an ablescientist, he never doubted the truth of geocentrism.
Today I looked int the article you sent. I must admit I was disappointed with
the effort of Robert Sungenis .
I will have to go to his site now to see where he is coming from. Gary Hoge won
the debate because Robert failed.
Hoge aske this question, yet note both were confused between GPS and
geostationary satellites.
This prompted me to write the following question to Mr. Sungenis: "What I'd
like to know is how it became stationary. The people who launched the GPS
satellites believed that the earth rotates, and so they placed their satellites
into an orbit at which they circle the earth once every day, believing that
this would result in a geosynchronous orbit. But if, as you say, those
satellites are currently not moving at all, if they somehow went from 6,856 mph
to 0 mph (without anybody noticing), what stopped them?"
Sungenis should have simply said that there is no noticable difference in both
systems between acceleration and deceleration. Both are technically
acceleration...
NASA may have thought it was speeding up to an orbital velocity, whilst in fact
it would have been slowing down.
Hoge had the problem of being unable to think in the geocentric frame of mind,
and thus refused the simple explanation but badly put, by Sungenis, as to why a
rocket rising vertically from a stationary world would not fall, but find a
point of equilibrium between the gravitation of the universal mass and that of
the earth....
I admit readily, that I will need to check back on Hoges figures concerning the
relationships involved in calculating orbital velocities versus distance from
the world, and just how the ponts of equilibrium are identical for the
"hovering" stationary satellite, due to Gravity pulls, and that of a truly
orbiting body.
Meanwhile, Hoges as well as NASA are keeping very quiet, about their expanded
research into the phenomenon detected by Faucault, which I posted recently,
concerning the effect of an eclipse of the sun. NB That the weight of the
pendulum INCREASED during the total eclipse, whereas according to the
convention held about gravity, it should have gotten lighter......
Now if we look at the aetheric theory of gravitation push rather than pull, The
explanation just may become obvious. But they would rather come out with some
maxwellian equation before ever admitting that....
Philip.
Philip.
Other related posts:
