[geocentrism] Re: Step 2 - Acentric cosmology
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:09:05 -0500
Hi, Dr. Jones, glad you're back. Seems to me that the only place the
general relativity works is the earth and the moon. If the earth isn't
turning and everything is spinning around the earth (i.e. the sun at 25
million mph and the moon at 65,000 mph and the stars even faster than the
sun and the planets of course -- that will disprove acentrism for sure.
Seems like any probe NASA sends up should be able to film this, document at
the very least that the earth is turning. If the earth is NOT turning, then
what you would see would definitely not be acentric, would show a startling
picture of a static world with a moon, sun and stars flying around it at an
incredible rate of speed. (since we can travel around in the firmament at
will, and only the bodies that God has set on a path are locked into the
firmament in their orbits.)
Am I wrong on this?
Respectfully,
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 8:05 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Step 2 - Acentric cosmology
> First of all, I'd like to welcome myself back. (My, this is a genteel
forum.)
>
> Second, I hope that we can reach concensus now on this
heliocentric/geocentric/acentric business.
>
> Basically, the problem is this:
>
> 1. What we are all taught is the acentric cosmology.
> 2. Acentric cosmology states that the Sun can be the centre of the
universe.
> 3. Acentric cosmology states that the World can be regarded as the centre
(even though "it isn't").
> 4. Dynamical equivalence is used by Mach and Einstein to confuse people
into thinking that you cannot tell the difference between heliocentric and
geocentric.
> 5. The reason number 4 is true is because the World is deemed to rotate in
both heliocentric and geocentric models.
>
> Using the "Do the alleged Apollo Moon landings conflict with the Bible?",
on the website, if necessary, have you satisfied yourselves by now as to
what I am maintaining?
>
> Do you agree? If not, then why not?
> Neville.
>
>
> "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
