[geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:51:56 -0500
[Gary writes:]
Robert, thank you for the link to your website and the drawings of the eclipse
scenarios. I see that you have some maths there that arrive at the proper
numbers. I confess I do not understand them or the drawings, at least not
without some help.
I understand two things.
1) The HC explanation of the shadow movement hinges upon the tangtial
speed of the moon whilst it is blocking the sun.
2) The GC explanation of the shadow movement must involve the relationship
between the faster moving sun and the slower moving moon.
I would like to understand your explanation thoroughly. I am thinking I will
have to have this communication with you off board as I would like to have all
the math symbols explained to me. I have your email address. I'll continue
there.
Sincerely,
Gary,
My analysis of 3 body alignments in HC and GC at
http://users.rcn.com/robert.bennett/GeocentrismRJBv2.doc
included the solar eclipses but I didn't put the diagrams up, except for HC,
because there is no disagreement between the 2 views within the 5% error I
estimate for both. The nominal umbral speed averages about 1060 mph, under
optimum alignment conditions.
If the GC view didn't really predict the correct shadow speed, don't you
think the Bad Asts would be crowing without end?
To ease your doubts, Gary (Thomas?), I have added the GC analysis for the
solar eclipse on PPs 39 and 49 of the link above.
(Be not unbelieving, Thomas, but believing!)
The real issue is the HC/GC conflicts in the other P.49 table alignments,
which no one has resolved as yet.
Resurrexit, sicut Ipse dixit!
Robert, your brother in Christ
> [Gary writes:]
..........
>
> 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
GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
