[geocentrism] Re: stupid question about the moon!
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
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.
Allen
Gary Shelton <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"The math that would explain this is non-existent as of yet, at least that's my
experience."
This only make the point you don?t understand it does not proves nor does it
disprove anything, except we don?t know everything. However, the faster
relative speed of the sun in relationship to the moon is what is OBSERVED not
theorized, as in A centric mechanics.
Allen
[Gary writes:]
No, you're right about not understanding it. I don't. My point was that no one
else has exhibited their knowledge of the shadow phenomenon from a geocentric
viewpoint yet either. Yes, of course the faster relative speed of the sun
versus the moon is what is seen, but this in no way explains the shadow
phenomenon. It is inadequate to do so, at least given the accepted distances
from the earth to the sun and the earth to the moon. The sun only gains 1/2
degree per hour on the moon. Without the moon being much closer to the sun (to
gain a huge "sweeping" speed of the shadow) I don't see how it can be made to
explain the shadow's 1000 mph eastwardly motion upon the earth. But again,
you're right. It doesn't make it impossible just because Gary Shelton can't
explain it.
I'm adamant only that no one else has explained it either.
Gary
Other related posts:
