[geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:40:15 -0400
Gary,
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
speeds.
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.
Robert
> -----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:
