[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:12:55 +0100
Dear Alan,
Perhaps you should invite your brother to answer these comments, I for one
would be very pleased to hear them.
Jack Lewis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Jones" <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 12:23 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge
> Dear Mr. Griffin,
>
> Please learn before you speak, because to say that you are confused would
be an understatement. Heliocentrism has never been proven, and your example
of the changing radial velocities of stars does not prove it either.
>
> I have referred you to the Modified Tychonic Geocentric model for
simplicity of answering your question concerning the changing radial
velocities of stars being accounted for in a geocentric cosmos. I would
stress that I do not personally advocate this particular geocentric model,
because of the deference that it still gives to the sun.
>
> Regardless, this system easily accounts for the aforementioned phenomena
for the very same reasons (mathematically speaking) that heliocentrism
allegedly accounts for the changing velocities also.
>
> Consider a fixed Earth, not moving in any way whatsoever, and located at
the exact centre of the universe. All the planets (excluding the Earth which
is not a planet) orbit the sun, whilst the the sun is also the kinematical
focus of the stars which also revolve around the sun once every 23h:56m. The
sun then in turn orbits the Earth once a day with everything else
accompanying it.
>
> Thus, we can conclude that due to the cam-like motion of the stars about
the Earth, this model easily accounts for the changing radial velocities of
the stars.
>
> As regards Mr. Knarr's brilliant email, I am afraid that he told the truth
and you didn't like it. You cannot prove him to be incorrect.
>
> Sorry, but your speaking nonsense about heliocentrism being simpler than
geocentrism! Did you know that all multimedia planetariums that predict
where celestial objects will be night after night, all actually have a
geocentric foundation? Or that no accurate computer program has ever been
built that demonstrates a working heliocentric model, without special lookup
tables to calculate the exact position of individual planets based upon
observations spanning 200 years.
>
> Further, heliocentrism actually has at the very least 3 more epicycles
than geocentrism.
>
> Finally, you mentioned how geocentrists can only predict things, but
heliocentrists have laws to adequately explain everything. You obviously
don't know anything about the 3 body problem, or perhaps the hidden failure
of the VSOP '87 model then. It may come as a surprise to you that nobody can
even calculate the orbit of the moon!
>
> Kind Regards,
>
>
>
> Steven Jones.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
>
Other related posts:
