Gary, not to worry. I had to think real hard myself, and I still do not understand the conservation of energy in angular velocity. Not many even know what is involved in the precession of a spinning top. Do a google and you will find pages of math. When they have to do that, I just instinctfully say, "they don't know. " We have an old saying here in Australia. "Bullshit baffles brains." Politics or science, its all the same. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:18 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Thanks for reading Philip, my argument has been, right or wrong, about friction and energy loss, as Dr. Jones indicates. Their side has been steadfastly about relative motions, and Newton's 1st Law. It is true I have made a couple of leaps in understanding since starting on this board with everyone, in that I think I can now follow what the acentrists are claiming. But, I still feel that my view of the non-rotating atmosphere is a much simpler picture of what we see and observe everyday. That is, I believe their view of all the convection and pressure gradient factors changing the flow of rapidly rotating air masses, followed by periods of meandering for that air, and then subsequent "re-grabbing" back of that air to rotational speed is much more, yes, convoluted than it needs to be to explain what you and I both see. They are saying, in general, this: the turn of the earth is what imparts turn to the atmosphere. Over billions of years the earth has had ample time to pass along angular velocity to the atmosphere as a whole. But it is still not unreasonable, they say, to see all the varying currents in the whole body of air, just as they happen in the ocean. They are strongly saying that Newton's 1st Law will keep the air tending to stay turning unless acted upon by an outside force. I am saying that the air is basically absolutely still on a still earth with the wind variations we see being due to the same factors the heliocentrists say apply to their atmosphere. Namely, convection and various pressure forces, et.al. Now the argument has been from the beginning to disprove their contention, which I have attempted to do. As I have had no formal training in astrophysics, astronomy, meteorology, or even geology, I've done pretty well to even remain standing, but a few items have come to the fore as being things I just do not know. And I have simply said as much. My best strength has been to be as logical as I know how and to be polite enough to keep the discussion going. Someone privately emailed me and told me that getting to Page 7 on BA was quite an accomplishment without the whole thing just breaking down into a shouting match and then the thread getting whacked. So if I have accomplished anything at all as regards them, it is to get them to more closely study their own story and, possibly, to see that mine at least makes as much sense. Perhaps Rob's acknowledgement of that was my highlight. I am glad I decided to take the plunge and see what these fellows had to say. I've learned a few things. And it was an enjoyable romp. The folks on BA are, admittedly, generally fairly astute. Some are extremely smart, some not so much. Some are nice and congenial, some are exasperating. But what they share is the underlying belief in Einsteinian relativity and the concomittant fact that the earth must rotate. Ceasingly, they claim a proof of this or that thing that couldn't possibly be explained by geocentrism, mostly pertaining to stellar issues . And as regards these claims, well, I confess I'm out of my element. I'm just a simple guy who sells fireworks for a living. Someone else will have to answer some of these questions. As far as my geocentric contention being a valid explainer of things, Rob did make the statement he made, though someone else commented that I need an extra explanation for the Coriolis Force/Effect, while they do not. But no one, so far as I know, has stated that all the various winds (easterlies, westerlies, the jet stream) are not covered in my worldview, and indeed, I would assume the air would be moving on a geocentric earth. It would be a logical corollary, I think, to take the opposite tack and try and positively prove the geocentric side of things, such as how the jet streams do operate in accordance with a fixed earth. The person so doing would be much better armed to enter the fray of BA than myself. It is a big undertaking, to be sure. But it would be worth learning. Thanks for reading, In geostasis Gary Shelton >