[geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:01:13 -0400
Gary,
Ask whatever you want, whenever you want.
I think the discussion should be on forum. Some other readers may not be as
forward as you at asking for help, but have the same concerns. LMK.
Thanks for your interest in my work.
Resurexit, sicut Ipse dixit!
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary Shelton
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:52 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
>
>
> [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:
