[geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Philip,
There is no impetuous that demands a different set of mechanics, none,
observationally or experimental. This concept of a need for a different stet of
mechanics stems from various assumptions about the origin of "forces".
I have pointed out that no one knows exactly the nature of or what cause
"forces" . Therefore, to suggest that, that demands a different set of
mechanics is assuming to much based on too little. You can?t demonstrate, not
describe but demonstrate, that necessity.
I have outlined, I believe key fundamentals, that as of yet have not been
shown to be inconstant with any observations or experimentation and could
account for all the motions and definitely would not require one set of
mechanics for spinning bodies and a different one for geo-static ones.
Identical mechanics would function in both. This is what has been demonstrated
experimentally as well as practically, unless everything, I mean everything is
all a lie, in which case you would have NO frame of reference from which to
draw and thus nothing could be proved or disproved.. It could all be lies, but
until you have proof you are left with what you have and from that you move to
what you do not know, not the other way around. Scripture dose not demand a
different set of mechanics for the two. Still not sure why any one think there
must be.
In my opinion as well as the hierarchy/ model I outlined before you are dead on
target with the plenum/eather existence. I have always held that position.
Scripture also demands it in the since that God "set" the bodies in the
firmament and called it heaven. Having the plenum/aether, however, changes
nothing, nor does it demand a different set of mechanics for the forces of
spinning and non spinning bodies. That being the case the only difference would
still be one of spatial location, with one fixed the other spinning, that?s
all. I?ll be happy to explain how it could all be if you would like to try to
try to tear it apart.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:It is this "observational equivalence" that
has allowed the A-centrist to get away with it. Again the only difference is
the origin of the movement not the relative speeds or positions.
And that Allen is what everybody seems to have trouble comprehending. Myself
included. Our brainwashed minds cant get it .. Has anybody ever tried to fathom
out just how cars rear differential works? Its beyond me and I got high marks
for mechanical aptitude at school.
What is observed is equivalent, but the dynamics are different.
Or are they? If we have an aether then the dynamics might read the same. That
is they will give the same observational measured dynamics If they were
different, then we are back trying to explain the bugbear that worried Neville,
the lunar landing.
Forget the moon for a moment, and consider the implications in sheer magnitude
of power alone in a cosmos of enormous size travelling at many times the speed
of light. The only way we could overcome this problem of dynamics is to have a
medium such as the plemum or aether which is doing the moving , and carrying
the cosmos with it.
I'm happy with that. And God is satisfied.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:59 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
"You will note that the explanation employs a STILL sun and the linear
(tangential) motion of the moon only."
The only difference is the "origin" of the motion not the relative speeds or
directions. In geocentric mechanics all movement is by the sun and moon. In
a-centric is due to the combination of the moons w-e orbit earth's spin Counter
clockwise spin and earth/ moon counter clockwise orbit around the sun. It is
this "observational equivalence" that has allowed the A-centrist to get away
with it. Again the only difference is the origin of the movement not the
relative speeds or positions.
Gary Shelton wrote:
[Allen wrote:]
Gary,
It is quite easily explained in both a-centric and geo-centric cosmologies the
only difference between the two is the "origin" of the motion not the results
of the motions or mat involved in predicting. This is because both must account
for the same observed effects. The math for those assumed motions is easily
obtained even on a-centric web sites. Aha, we don?t accept a-centric
cosmologies, true, but the math that describes the relative velocities of the
objects in the sky are only different from geocentric cosmologies in the origin
of motion not their effects, this given the assumed distances, which I believe
to be relatively accurate. Otherwise, I?m not sure what is in question.
[Gary writes:]
Allen, I don't know how "easy" it is to find the math on acentric websites. I
know I was only informed of it during a long venture onto the BABB and many
painful pages later. The link to the explanation to which I refer is here:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=302768#302768
You will note that the explanation employs a STILL sun and the linear
(tangential) motion of the moon only. This is an entirely different mechanism
than what is allowed in the geocentric view. What is important in ToSeek's
explanation is the simple linear motion of the moon. We geocentrists have to
explain this somehow using the difference in tangential velocities between two
MOVING objects (the sun and moon).
This is what is in question. It is, as I said before, not a question of
relative motions.
By the way, what's the deal with the question marks used for apostrophes? Is
there a meaning to this practice?
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
Other related posts:
