[geocentrism] Re: Step 2 - Acentric cosmology
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:31:47 +0000 (GMT)
Gary,
You answered:
"No.1, yes. ... The acentric cosmology necessitates something that is still
developing, thus making the Bible wrong. I don't accept that."
I think, by this, your objection to acentrism is the "infinite" universe it
requires? If so, then I agree with you.
"No.2, No, primarily because I don't see how you can say the geocentric
cosmology has anything to do with acentrism."
You are mixing up your understanding of what "geocentrism" means and what the
acentrist takes it to mean. This is the main reason for getting everyone to
stick with the Biblical argument for so long. A geostatic World is also
geocentric to you (and I - which is why we call our mathematical model
"Geocentric Universe," rather than "Geostatic Universe"), but in modern science
it MUST include a rotating World. (For those of you who have Geocentric
Universe 2.2, see the illustrated talk, "Heliocentrism and Relativity," on the
Guided Tour.)
This second point also answers a question you posed earlier, when you asked me
about Dr. Bouw's interpretation of geocentrism as having a rotating World. Dr.
Bouw maintains the dynamical equivalence of heliocentrism and geocentrism. This
means that, yes, he supports a rotating World (although I don't think he
appreciated that until recently, when he started to use the term, "geostatic"
after a list that Jack Lewis set up).
1. IN BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY, THE WORLD DOES NOT ROTATE.
Website www.midclyth.supanet.com
Neville.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
