1. The difference between observations and cause of the observations. Lets get the "facts" strait........The fact that "orbits work in the solar system" is not nor was it ever in question that is a silly and irrelevant statement..... There is no question the motions exist...... However, the fact those motions exist does not tell you which one is in real v relative motion ( if there is such a thing..thatʼs kinda important..) it certainly does it tell you how those motions can only work the way you imagine them to work without assuming that very conclusions about the very "facts" you claim as the base for that proof! Simply seeing the orbits does not prove anything....that is a silly and ignorant argument. 2. The "official" current MS definition of gravity is based on GTR ..............If he had any understanding about Gravity in GTR he would already know without having to be shown that in GTR as per GTR "Gravity" is claimed to work just as well in both systems HC/AC v GC.........via Mach's Principle 3."It doesn't matter much how gravity works.". This statement demonstrates complete ignorance of cosmology and celestial mechanics.........wow....Eienstein and even modern cosmologist were and are even to this day all just wasting there time..!? How gravity works is of the upmost importance ..again observations that gravity is doing something does not prove how or why or even to what extent it works...... If it does not mater how gravity works....then........what was the imperative for dark matter and dark energy again?!...Then there is the pioneer 10 & 11 "anomalies" the experimental observations that the inverse square law is only a rough approximation ...galaxy structures donʼt even conform to the "gravity" of all those orbits working in the solar system!!!!!!!!....oh, but it makes no difference because "orbits work in the solar system" ....well gee then......does that prove that gravity is really magic fairy pixy dust, because either this argument is complete ignorance about gravity and orbital mechanics or he wishes to give "gravity" all of the magic properties of pixy dust..........!? ----- Original Message ---- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 4:03:37 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Torsion Balance Bernie, It doesn't matter much how gravity works. It is easily established that it does. How? Simple parallax and positional measurements, together with radial velocities (and in more recent times bouncing radio signals off the planets) have conclusively established how orbital motions and orbits work in the solar system. Case closed. Debate ended. Facts triumph. D.L. Either way "basic physics" not only does not answer the gravitational anomalies but also does not tell you how gravity works at all ( push v pull ). Chalking up everything that does not fit to "anomalies" is hardly scientific evidence for the gravity of "basic physics"...... and if you don't know how gravity works you can't claim "basic physics" and certainly can't claim gravity as a validation for the HC ( heliocentric ) explanation for celestial mechanics when you don't even know what gravity is or how it works... and what's worse just ignore everything that does not fit your ideas and fool oneself into believing it demonstrates ones explanations...???... well sure it does... just ignore everything that does not fit and only focus on and consider the things that do fit. Never mind the fact that one does so only by assumptions... that is not science nor is it basic physics, that is called imagining things! Gravity is the "glue" but if you don't know how the glue works... i.e. push v pull and/or other variables...... to make an appeal to "basic physics" and gravity... is nothing more than a copout, hoping no one will notice! Allen Daves D.L. wrote: Bernie, Mutual attraction between objects and the inverse square law for gravity are easily demonstrated in the lab with a torsion balance. Basic physics would be a plus here. Regards D.L.