[geocentrism] Re: About time.
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 19:13:36 +0100 (BST)
Thanks for that, Allen. The problem we would face is that the acentrists claim
to know the rate of rotation of the World to a thousandth of a second and these
motions are, as you know, specifically calculated to make their model fit
observations. The other thing that they rely on is invoking huge distances to
the "background" stars (this is how they attempt to wriggle out of the
celestial poles argument).
I am working on something in GU2005 at the moment which should prove our
position once and for all (if it works!). This is one of the two main reasons
for the delay in releasing the model.
Best wishes,
Neville.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dr Jones,
I was organizing some of my data today and ran across a observation by Dr.
James Hanson that I remembered from a while back...... it had to do with
Periodicity.. I quote "..if the earth has all the gyrations and motions that
science claims it has then the return of a point on the earth's surface to the
same place in space would not periodically occur, or at all. After all, that
point along with the whole earth, would have wandered off far removed from
where it had been a day before."...." it was precisely this point that Vera
Rubin's group were horrified to discover"...Rubin V. C. et al 1976 Astronomical
Journal 81: 687-718... I can send you this paper if you like however it is 2.55
MB Gif images from the ADS database.....?. I thought about you and Steven
demonstrating the difference in the observations of the background stars with
respect to a geocentric and a-centric frame of reference? could this
periodicity issue contribute to your model? .. and if so is this some thing t
hat you
and Steven hope to be able to clearly demonstrate in GU 2005?
allen
---------------------------------
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!
Security Centre.
Other related posts:
