[geocentrism] Re: Steves lost in cyberspace input
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 12:32:27 +0100
Steve wrote:
> Greetings Geo list...
> Here's a thought...Let's take a flashlight, a softball and a ping-pong ball.
> Let the flashlight or lantern act as the sun in both scenarios. Ok...1st
> scenario: Place the lantern in the center of the room. Place the Softball
> out some distance from it, representing the earth and let the ping-pong ball
> be revolving around the softball, representing the moon. NOW...as these move
> above there will be both solar and lunar eclipses...nothing new there, BUT
> here's something to make note of....the ability to "predict" them...ok?
> That's important to remember. NOW...the 2nd scenario: Place the Softball at
> the center of the room. Place the ping-pong ball a little ways out and let
> it revolve around the softball, representing the moon again. Place the
> lantern out even further...let it represent the sun and allow it to also
> revolve around the softball. NOW...the solar and lunar effects as seen from
> earth are the SAME...BUT...hold on....can you equally predict and see the
> SAME number of both types of eclipses AND at the same times as with a
> heliocentric system?
Yes. There is no difference. I don't know where this idea that there
could be a difference comes from but it is completely flawed.
> There's the catch...Can any one here show a table,
> mathematically that would correctly and equally represent the number of and
> dates of both past and future eclipses? NOW...IF BOTH scenarios correspond
> exactly to what is observed....then one is back to square one in either
> argument....
If you want to debunk basic geometry then you provide the proof please.
All you have to do is show how you can get a different prediction
regarding the relative motions of a bunch of bodies by changing your
co-ordinate system.
>BUT if one does NOT match with the obviously passed observed
> eclipses....well...we have a winner :-) Go figure cobbers.....literally :-)
Well they actually use the heliocentric model because it's easier and
they make very accurate predictions so if you had a point (which you
don't) then you'd only prove that the geostationary model is wrong anyway.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
