[geocentrism] atmosphere.

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:19:57 +1000

If the earth is still,
the air motions seem so vastly simpler to understand to me.
Well not simpler Gary, because if the coriolis effect is not caused by the 
differential of the peripheral speeds between the equator and the poles, of the 
rotating globe, then they have to be explained by the effect of the different 
peripheral speeds between the equator and the poles of the cosmos upon the 
stationary earth. Why, because they are a rotational phenomenon. 

Thhis latter does seem to fit dont you think, with my explanation to Neville of 
the aether on the east versus west launch of satellites. If the rotating cosmos 
affects the launch east versus west, then it likewise will affect the 
atmosphere to the same degree, much to the confusion of the accentrists. 
Phil.


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gary Shelton 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:37 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.


  Philip,

  Thanks.

  I will quickly concede that my exploits into the atmosphere have been
  countered by the Rob Glovers and Mike Boyds on BA.  I do feel that Robert
  still believes that there is an issue for us here and Robert is much smarter
  than myself.  Perhaps, you know, something will come of this whole idea
  yet....I like Robert's postings on the subject.

  I do hold to one thing in particular after all of that atmospheric affair,
  and that is that our view of the world has an atmosphere that is simple and
  satisfies Occam's Razor much better than theirs.  The incredible fact that
  the earth is turning and also the atmosphere, and that winds can blow within
  this turning atmospherical body in any direction and still maintain an
  overall rotational speed is, like a few other things in this subject, a hard
  thing for me to visualize and "get my nut around".  If the earth is still,
  the air motions seem so vastly simpler to understand to me.

  However, they would insist I have to come up with "an extra explanation" to
  account for the Coriolis effect, whereas in their view it is inherent on a
  turning body.

  Gosh, I don't know.  I have to work for a living.

  They of course claim Occam's Razor for their side....

  Gary Shelton




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 3:22 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.


  > Gary. You outdone yourself and me.. I could not have explained it so well
  . How come you wasted time talking about atmospheric waves winds and
  things... I'm going to look at all of your post again. Maybe I'll steal it
  for reuse...
  > Phil.
  >   ----- Original Message ----- 
  >   From: Gary Shelton
  >   To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  >   Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:48 PM
  >   Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
  >
  >
  >   Cheryl,
  >
  >   Lord knows I'm not an expert but I will contribute this much.  I don't
  know
  >   of anybody who believes the strict "geocentric" definition as put
  forward by
  >   Dr. Jones.  That is the one where the earth is spinning, and the sun
  >   revolves around the earth counter-clockwise, but obviously not as fast,
  in
  >   the angular velocity factor, as the earth is turning.  So this option
  you
  >   can just ignore, IMHO.   Your Bad Astronomers are "heliocentrists" (or
  >   "acentrists" if you prefer) and would say the earth rotates and revolves
  >   around the sun just as do the other planets we can observe.
  >
  >   We "geostatists" naturally feel that the Bible correctly states the
  truth
  >   when it says the earth is immovable.  What this means is simply that the
  >   earth is indeed perfectly still in the most "preferred frame of
  reference"
  >   (to borrow the Einsteinian lingo) and that the sun, moon, stars, and
  >   everything else we see in the heavens is revolving daily around the
  earth in
  >   a clockwise direction (for the most part), just as they appear to be
  doing
  >   to us here on earth.
  >
  >   Biblically, the earth is a special place because it is mentioned
  directly in
  >   Genesis 1:1.  You will note there that God didn't tell us "In the
  beginning
  >   God created the heaven and Halley's Comet."  Or "Jupiter", or "Mars",
  >   "Venus", or even "the sun".  He told us "the heaven and the earth".  So
  in
  >   my mind that puts us in a special place right off the bat.  Also,
  Genesis
  >   1:14-17 speak of the reasons all of the heavenly bodies were created.
  Those
  >   would be, you may remember, for "signs, seasons, days, years, and to
  give
  >   light upon the earth".  I've said this a few times before on this forum
  but
  >   it is perfectly clear that all of those reasons are reasons FOR THE
  EARTH.
  >   So that, logically, if the earth were not here, then neither would all
  the
  >   heavenly bodies.  As I said, it is a most "preferred frame of
  reference"....
  >   And that is what gets us in trouble with all the acentric atheistic
  >   Einsteinians.  Because, of course, they would say there can be no such
  thing
  >   in reality.  All places, when looking out from that place, will appear
  to
  >   each be in the CENTER OF ALL; it's the cosmological principle.
  >
  >   If you are following the geostatic view, then you understand that
  everything
  >   revolves around the earth clockwise daily, including the sun and moon.
  Your
  >   question about the 28 days concerns the moon's revolution about the
  earth in
  >   the h-system.  Keep in mind the h-view of the moon has it orbiting the
  earth
  >   counter-cwise in around the 28 days.  This speed is essential to
  accurately
  >   account for the observed phases of the moon that we see on earth.
  >
  >   Our view of the moon is that it orbits clockwise daily and that the
  moon's
  >   phases are explained by the difference in angular velocity between the
  >   slower moon and the faster sun, which both are orbiting the earth
  clockwise
  >   daily.  As for the sun the h-view has the earth orbiting it in 365 days
  with
  >   a tilted axis to explain the seasons.  The geostatic view has the
  untilted
  >   earth being orbited by the sun in what Richard Elmendorf described as a
  >   "double helix" pattern.  This also explains the seasons.
  >
  >   Remember again, that if you are on the moon watching the earth, you are
  >   moving as well as the earth you are watching, and in the final analysis,
  you
  >   can't say whether it is you or the object of your eye (the earth) is
  moving.
  >   Sounds rather Zen-like, doesn't it?
  >
  >   I hope that is of help.  I'm no expert so take everything I say with a
  grain
  >   of salt always. The truth comes with repeated dives into the field of
  >   knowledge, not just one quick dip.
  >
  >   Sincerely,
  >
  >   Gary Shelton
  >
  >   ----- Original Message ----- 
  >   From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:02 PM
  >   Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
  >
  >
  >   > I see the part about everything revolving around the earth once a day.
  I
  >   > still don't see where the 28 days of the moon, and the other orbits of
  the
  >   > planets, the 365 days per the sun come in.
  >   >
  >   > I've been hopping around the net looking for those answers and haven't
  >   found
  >   > them yet.  Is there a simple answer to this question?
  >   >
  >   > I read Dr. Jones' landing on the moon essay over again, and seemed to
  get
  >   > more out of it this time than before, and it is so fascinating.  But I
  >   don't
  >   > claim to understand all of it.
  >   >
  >   > I am only of average intelligence when it comes to math.  Physics was
  >   > something I flunked in high school.  My forte is politics and
  religion.
  >   >
  >   > Cheryl
  >   > ----- Original Message -----
  >   > From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:13 PM
  >   > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
  >   >
  >   >
  >   > > Cheryl,
  >   > >
  >   > > I think one thought that might assist you is to understand that if
  you
  >   are
  >   > > on the moon watching the earth, you are not at a standstill.  You,
  too,
  >   > are
  >   > > moving.  You would not be able to say with absolute certainty
  whether it
  >   > was
  >   > > the earth turning (heliocentrist) that you were watching or the
  moon's
  >   > > clockwise motion about the earth (geostatist).
  >   > >
  >   > > This is why it is often said that the only way to prove the issue is
  to
  >   > step
  >   > > outside of the universe and look down onto things.
  >   > >
  >   > > Sincerely,
  >   > >
  >   > > Gary Shelton
  >   > >
  >   > > ----- Original Message -----
  >   > > From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 7:42 PM
  >   > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
  >   > >
  >   > >
  >   > > > Thanks.  Could you explain the geocentrist model to me as simply
  as
  >   > > > possible?  Is it as simple as that the earth is not moving and
  >   > everything
  >   > > is
  >   > > > going around us once every 24 hours?  So that means the astronauts
  on
  >   > the
  >   > > > moon would see what appears to be a revolving earth, going around
  once
  >   > in
  >   > > 24
  >   > > > hours.
  >   > > >
  >   > > > So where does the 28 days come in?
  >   > > >
  >   > > > Cheryl
  >   > > > ----- Original Message -----
  >   > > > From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > > > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 8:30 PM
  >   > > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
  >   > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > > > > Cheryl,
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > You need a good dose of Bad Astronomy.  The folks there will
  gladly
  >   > > > clarify
  >   > > > > any relative motion questions you have.  But I suggest you
  browse
  >   > > through
  >   > > > a
  >   > > > > couple of topics that I participated in last year.  You will
  notice
  >   I
  >   > > > > thought like yourself in the beginning.
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > The first is a topic that I actually started, unbelievable as
  that
  >   > seems
  >   > > > to
  >   > > > > me now....
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > "Relative Motion Falls Apart When applied to Planes"
  >   > > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > >
  >   >
  >
  http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16726&postdays=0&postorder
  >   > > > =asc&start=0
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > The next is a topic begun by a devout acentrist athiest named
  >   > Maksutov.
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > "Thinking about geocentrism"
  >   > > > >
  >   > >
  >
  http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=350240&highlight=#350240
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > I did not agree with these people but I could not counter their
  >   > superior
  >   > > > > academic arguments.  Still, it was interesting taking the battle
  to
  >   > > "their
  >   > > > > turf".  I personally believe that they made some good points and
  we
  >   > need
  >   > > > to
  >   > > > > be able to answer all of them, just as the creationists have a
  >   counter
  >   > > to
  >   > > > > every single evolution premise put forward.
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > Sincerely,
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > Gary Shelton
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
  >   > > > > From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > > > > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  >   > > > > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:31 AM
  >   > > > > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Hello, group.
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > > A friend told me the whole moon landing thing was staged in
  Las
  >   > Vegas,
  >   > > > > that
  >   > > > > > the film crew all had untimely deaths later, and they were
  >   pacified
  >   > > with
  >   > > > > > hookers and parties during hte shoot.
  >   > > > > >
  >   > > > > > If they did go to the moon I'd like to know why not one single
  >   > > astronaut
  >   > > > > has
  >   > > > > > commented about observing the earth turning.  I realize that
  it
  >   > takes
  >   > > 12
  >   > > > > > hours for one side of the earth to completely move around, but
  it
  >   > > would
  >   > > > > > still be apparent to anyone looking that the earth was
  turning.
  >   > > > > >
  >   > > > > > If you went to the moon and believed the earth was turning,
  >   wouldn't
  >   > > you
  >   > > > > > want to brag about having seen it with your own two eyes?
  >   > > > > >
  >   > > > > > Cheryl
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > > --
  >   > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
  >   > > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  >   > > > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date:
  2/14/05
  >   > > > >
  >   > > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > > > --
  >   > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
  >   > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  >   > > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
  >   > > >
  >   > > >
  >   > >
  >   > >
  >   > >
  >   > > --
  >   > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
  >   > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  >   > > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
  >   > >
  >   > >
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >
  >   >
  >   > -- 
  >   > No virus found in this incoming message.
  >   > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  >   > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
  >   >
  >   >
  >
  >
  >
  >   -- 
  >   No virus found in this outgoing message.
  >   Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  >   Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > -- 
  > No virus found in this incoming message.
  > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
  >
  >



  -- 
  No virus found in this outgoing message.
  Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
  Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05



Other related posts:

  • » [geocentrism] atmosphere.