[geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.

  • From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:40:15 -0400


I'm puzzled why you believe the firmament is rigid like concrete. The plenum
could be very dense, but flexible enough to allow differential radial

One model for it is a vortex of Planck-size particles moving fastest at the
edges of the universe and decreasing in speed to zero at the center....the
Earth, of course. This main structure could have embedded sub-structures
that supply the motion to the galaxies, clusters, star systems, etc.

The challenge is to use Genesis as a guide in building a scientifically
correct GC model.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary L. Shelton
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 11:46 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous
> sat.
> Philip,
> I guess if everything were locked in a firmament of concrete and spinning
> ultra rigidly, then those stars would indeed follow the sun.  But the sun
> and moon do not show us a firmament that is so rigid, as solar eclipses
> would happen every month at a new moon if it were.  If things were in
> lockstep in the firmament, the moon would have to travel as fast
> around the
> earth as the sun does.  But it clearly does not, as evidences by the moon
> phases.
> So, it would follow that the sun could make its annual double
> helix movement
> around the earth and the stars would not necessarily keep that
> same pattern.
> Gary

Other related posts: