[geocentrism] Re: Steves lost in cyberspace input
- From: "Ancient" <ancient@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:14:40 -0400
Greetings Mike,
Your manners define you as someone without proper upbringing at the least
and lack of a pedigree at best. My point was quiet obvious to the least
minded individuals. NOBODY was "debunking geometry" for crying out loud
Mike, take time to read before inserting your foot in your mouth please.
Your obnoxious (as well as Alan's) is unbecoming a REAL scientist. What was
said was using BOTH the Heliocentric model and the Geocentric model it would
be easy enough for YOU AND ALAN or any one out there to look at past
eclipses (lunar and solar) and see if both models accurately show those that
have already occurred. The same can be done for those already predicted. IF
the Geocentric model can't predict with the same accuracy as the
Heliocentric model then the Geocentrist will either need to revise their
theory and or their model. Simple as that. As far as the whiny excuse that
the Heliocentric model is "easier" to use...it goes back to my statement
about those that can't handle classical science...As ALL others here on this
list have noticed both you and Alan have a tendency to be both snobbish and
just down right rude. In my opinion you haven't proven that you're worthy of
holding such an air about yourselves. Stick to the points and stop the crass
remarks. You, IF either of YOU are scientist should both know better and act
as professional as YOU claim.
Kindest regards,
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: <geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 7:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Steves lost in cyberspace input
> Steve wrote:
> > Greetings Geo list...
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:
