[geocentrism] Re: celestial poles argument & Dynamical Equivalence
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:52:28 -0800 (PST)
Steven,
I think the celestial poles argument is a sound one. I don?t see away around it
because according to the A-centrist cosmology there are only 3 principle
movements of the earths axis of rotaiton; Nutation, luni-solar precession, and
planetary precession those will not reconcile the problems of the celestial
poles. Not to mention, and I hate to sound like a broken record to everyone,
but the detailed recordings by such men as Strabo, Ptolomey, Toco Breahe, even
Copericus, not to mention Ancient Chinese , Egyptians and Babylonians observed
about the changes in the ecliptic over the last ~3500 years had to be
contributed to systematic error over the same period consistently throughout
the whole world, because the is no explanation in a a-centric universe. And
those observations would only complicate the points you have made in the
celestial poles argument. The Proof for a Geocentric Geostatic universe already
exist you posses it even now. The real question, I think, is how best t
o
present it and utilize it in the rest of the world for the purposes of
destroying the Bible bashing Godless mindset that persist. Not withstanding,
there are many who will not see it no mater what you show demonstrate or cite.
I Don?t think there is a "silver bullet" that will put "all to rest". Jesus
Christ himself could not convince everyone that he was indeed the Christ, and
look what proofs he offered, he raised the dead and himself. I don?t think the
difficulty is so much in the technical aspects there is plenty of observation
experimentation and outright proof for the Geocentric Geostatic universe. The
real difficulty I think lies in getting these things out there in such a way
that gives people a chance to see it just as much and as "aesthetically
pleasant" as the A-centric gobbly gook. Just as in one of the previous postings
about the number of physicist knowing about the Sagnac or Michealson ?Gale
experiments. Most probably don?t know about YP Varshni and I know ver
y few
know anything about the observed changes of the ecliptic. It is not taught and
the technical work done on it has all but disappeared from sight. You can
probably count on two hands and feet the number of people who are known to have
actually seen and posses those works, and most of them are not astronomers,
physicist or cosmologist. I don?t want to ramble on here but let me go just a
little bit further. The major reason, I believe, the a-Centrist are so
successful lies not in their technical merit, they have none! But rather, it
lies in their ability to saturate and present it in the most vivid color with
usually a narrator with a British accent to give it an air of sophistication to
it. I?m just saying, the deficit on our side is not technical it is marketing.
I say this because there is not a a-centrist (PhD level) on the planet who
could even if they would successfully debate all these things publicly. If that
is not the case why haven?t we seen the debates because the ch
allenges
to their positions have been out there for years. They don?t feel they have to
fight us because we do not rise to the level of competition. This is especially
true when it comes to our ability at presentation and saturation. I don?t think
that we will be able to make significant inroads until we tackle those two
problems head on.
Yours in Christ,
Allen Daves
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steven said, after rightly showing the true geocentric position, (providing his
equivalent figutes have been transposed correctly)
"We can conclude that this is not dynamical equivalence. If then a geostatic
and geocentric model is physically different from a heliocentric or geocentric
model where the world does rotate, we should be able to predict discrepancies
or differences between the two to prove once and for all which model is true."
If I deduce that by dynamic equivalence you mean all the relative observations
are the same under both systems, then I cannot see why you can make your first
conclusion, that it is not dynamic equivalence..
But if you mean the dynamics of both systems are different, (ie the moon is
moving in the opposite direction) , and therefore they are not equivalent, I
concede your first conclusion..
However I find it difficult to accept your assertion, "we should be able to
predict discrepancies or differences between the two to prove once and for all
which model is true."
The prediction is indeed truely possible, but proving them by any observable
means known to science at the moment I sincerely doubt. That is if we discount
the evidence raised by the accentrists using Newtonian physics, to prove the
earths rotation, namely the coriolis effects on the atmosphere, and the
Geostatic satellite, the existence of which of which are undeniable realities.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Dynamical Equivalence
Dear All,
The rotating world is essential for worldly acentric cosmology, the blasphemous
belief where the centre of the universe is nowhere and the circumference of
which is everywhere. Such a confused understanding is not in harmony with the
bible and therefore should be firmly rejected.
Provided the Earth rotates, then even if the cosmos is geocentric the
geocentric model merely becomes a special instance of the heliocentric one,
where one has simply just pushed the sun of centre.
A very good example of this can be found at this web site:
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/ptolemy.html
Three models are presented clearly in the java animation:
Extremely unusual Ptolemiac model where the world revolves.
Heliocentric model
Modified Tychonic model
What is not immediately obvious is that all three of the models assume a
rotating world, therefore all three models are dynamically equivalent.
Key features in the geocentric models are:
The World completes one revolution on its axis once every 23 hours 56 minutes,
rotating west to east, which is why the stars are seen to rise in the east and
set in the west in the same time.
The sun orbits the Earth once every 365.25 days which explains the transit of
the sun through the ecliptic (the background of stars).
The moon takes about 28 days to orbit the Earth travelling west to east, which
is about 50.5 minutes slower than the world rotates in the same direction and
therefore explains why the moon can be seen to rise in the east and set in the
west.
The stars do not move.
No comparison of the heliocentric model to the geocentric ones is necessary
because only one thing has changed between them. Instead of the sun orbiting
the Earth once a year the Earth orbits the sun once a year. This is dynamical
equivalence, but it is not biblical for the Bible stresses that the Earth
cannot be moved, and therefore does not rotate.
We then derive the conclusion that the universe is both geocentric and
geostatic, a comparison is now necessary between the aforementioned models and
the new geostatic and geocentric model.
The World completes one revolution on its axis once every 23 hours 56 minutes,
rotating west to east, which is why the stars are seen to rise in the east and
set in the west in the same time.
WRONG
The World stands stationary at the centre of the universe, no motion is
attributed to the world.
The sun orbits the Earth once every 365.25 days which explains the transit of
the sun through the ecliptic (the background of stars).
WRONG
The sun orbits the Earth once every twenty four hours, which explains the days.
The moon takes about 28 days to orbit the Earth travelling west to east, which
is about 50.5 minutes slower than the world rotates in the same direction and
therefore explains why the moon can be seen to rise in the east and set in the
west.
WRONG
The moon takes about 24 hours 50.5 minutes to orbit the Earth travelling east
to west which is the opposite direction.
The stars do not move.
WRONG
The stars orbit the World once every 23 hours 56 minutes east to west.
We can conclude that this is not dynamical equivalence. If then a geostatic and
geocentric model is physically different from a heliocentric or geocentric
model where the world does rotate, we should be able to predict discrepancies
or differences between the two to prove once and for all which model is true.
This has been done and one such example is at:
www.midclyth.supanet.com/page32.htm
I urge you all to study the celestial poles argument and tell me what you think.
Yours in Christ,
Steven Jones.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Re: celestial poles argument & Dynamical Equivalence
