[geocentrism] Re: The Sun/ Comment & question
- From: Alan Griffin <ajg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:49:27 +0100
On 09 Aug, Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jack, I was trying to explain to Alan what I meant by it being possible
> for a thing to be at total rest even if it was not detectable. I have as
> much chance of convincing him of that as I have of convincing him that
> God is a possibility even if He was not detectable.
I not only think God is a possibility. He is a certainty!
> As regards the relationship to geocentrism, I wanted to show how
> observations can be from two viewpoints relatively, and that
> calculations done from each perspective confirm each, simply because
> each believes his base is the correct one. A matter of truth and of
> faith.
But what you keep failing to take on board is that calculations
from a geocentric viewpoint do not even begin to add up. I have calculated
the mass of the sun for you. How would a geocentrist do that? He couldn't,
because his theory flies in the face of Newton's laws, so he couldn't use
Newton's laws. I just used a simple calculation, using Newton, to find
both the mass of the Sun, and of the earth.
> I have every reason to believe the geocentric model to be more likely
> the TRUTH .
It would be nice to hear a logical reason. I have an open mind.
Persuade me!
> I will not allow the faith of another in modern science to
> sway me from that belief based purely upon theoretical concepts which
> cannot be demonstrated as axiomatic, which means of course no longer a
> theory.
But the concepts are all backed by centuries of experiment which
confirm them. How much more proof do you need?
Alan
Other related posts:
