[geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:02:45 -0500
[Gary writes:]
Allen,
Thanks for the www.materialworlds.com website. That is pretty interesting.
Philip ought to go there to check out the tilting of the orbits that is allowed
there as he once posed a mental question of moving a polar orbit over onto its
side. I think you can do that there, but it requires downloading software.
However, I couldn't find anything on the site concerning solar eclipses.
Possibly you can give a specific link to the exact reasoning you are proposing
from that or another location? Or perhaps you can more thoroughly explain your
understanding of the heliocentric explanation for the solar eclipse shadow
movement.
As it is, I am not getting your argument. Below you do not present the
heliocentric version of the solar eclipse, only the list of the three
heliocentric motions of the earth/moon system. After that, you state that in
the "Geo-static case" that "The rates of 1&2 are combined and the motion is
given entirely to the moon." Since you spell out below that number 1 is the
rate of the earth's spin, what in the world does this have to do with the
"Geo-static case"? That is confusing, Allen.
Later you write that "In both cases geocentric or helio-centric constructions
only change perspectives."
As I've said before, this is not really all that simple. You cannot just say
it's a matter of perspective or that it's relative motions. The heliocentrists
can claim that the w-e linear (tangential) motion of the moon causes the solar
eclipse shadow w-e movement here on earth. We geocentrists can't use that AT
ALL. Our moon moves e-w, just as we see it, while the shadow moves w-e. We
therefore have to come up with another angle to explain the thing. Such is
what I am awaiting.....
You seem to be saying that somehow the earth's rotation is involved in the
heliocentric explanation. But this is not the case. The heliocentric
explanation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EARTH'S ROTATION. The
heliocentric explanation is purely about the linear speed of the moon in front
of the sun and the diameter of the earth. I'll give you the link again to
explain this fact, as it is such a good, clear espousing of the other side's
story of the solar eclipse shadow movement.
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=302768#302768
If you are not saying that the earth's rotation is responsible for the
phenomenon under the h-view, I apologize. I'm not sure exactly how you are
explaining it yet. As I've said previously, this isn't that simple or Dr.
Jones would never have had to pull his first paper on the subject, and he would
have long ago re-posted the updated version.
I maintain that this solar eclipse shadow movement is every bit as big an
obstacle to geocentrism as the geostationary/static satellites have been viewed
as being by Dr. Jones.
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
[Allen wrote:]
Gary,
In a helio-centric system the three separate/ symbiotic movements are as
follows:
Sun is still
1.Earth is spinning
2.moon orbits earth in same direction as earth?s spin
3.Earth/moon system orbits sun
In a Geo-static case
1.The rates of 1&2 are combined and the motion is given entirely to the moon.
OR The earth?s spin & moon orbiting in same direction as earth's spin is
replaced with just the moons orbit in the direction with the speed exactly as
observed in nature.
2.The Earth/moon system?s orbit of the sun is replaced with a sun orbiting the
earth.
In both cases geocentric or helio-centric constructions only change
perspectives. In the geostatic one the movements are now given to the other
bodies instead of ascribing any motion to the earth. This is what I mean by
?origin? of the motion. In the Geostatic case the rates at which the moon and
sun orbit earth is based strictly on observation while in the Helio-centric
everything is just basically reversed so that the motion is ?calculated to
observation? and ascribes motion to the earth. It is just a mater of
perspective, are you standing on the earth not moving or are on the sun not
moving. The difference is how it would appear from the sun Vs how it appears
here on earth.
www.materialworlds.com offers a fairly good simm of these two
perspectives......I think seeing the two different perspectives might help you
to understand. It is just a matter of perspective, where are you standing not
moving? Where ever that is, if you are not moving, then everything else around
you must be.
Gary Shelton <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Allen,
What are the three movements involved? The sun is still. What three movements
do you refer to?
Also, what do you mean by "origin of the movements"?
With your last sentence, I hope you are right, that the differences are made up
in speed and direction. But I do not know of the proof. Can you give citations
to verify your statement?
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
[Allen wrote:]
Gary,
There are three movments involved in the Heliocentric version, two in a
geostatic one. in both case the objects will arive at the same place in space
at the same time, the only difference is the origin of the movments.The
differencs are made up in speed and direction that is all.
Allen
[Gary writes:]
Allen, I may not entirely understand what you are saying. The grammar in your
third sentence above is a bit vague. However, if you are saying that the
acentric explanation for the eastward shadow movement involves a 2300 mph
counterclockwise tangential speed of the moon overcoming a 1000 mph
counterclockwise rotation speed of the earth, then you are absolutely mistaken.
See the link I gave you in my last post.
The acentric explanation involves only the tangential motion of the moon versus
the still sun. The geocentric explanation involves...well, no one knows what
that involves exactly, because we don't have an explanation as of yet.
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
[Allen wrote:]
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.
Other related posts:
