[geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
- From: "w.mackey" <w.mackey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:07:11 +0100
Philip said
"Our brainwashed minds cant get it .. "
Exactly Philip...........I'm glad I'm not the only one!
Wendy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:17 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
> 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 <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.8.4 - Release Date: 27/03/05
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.8 - Release Date: 13/04/05
Other related posts:
