[geocentrism] Re: Challenge/
- From: "Knarr" <knarrrj@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 22:55:25 -0500
Dear Sir,
Please allow me to offer a few comments, which may or may not be directly
related to this discussion.
One: a red shift, ostensibly, shows a receding star. This is not
necessarily so. A red shift could just show a distant star and the light from
that star has just slowed down as it traveled to earth. The constant speed of
light has never been established. The speed, and it's constancy, of light has
never been measured as discussed in the book Einstein On The Carpet by Robert
Lavaggi. Only the reflected speed of light has been measured. No
bounced/reflected object has the same speed after the bounce as it does prior
to the bounce.
Also, there is no rule that says that a red shift may not occur, in growing and
diminishing intensity each six months in a regular rhythm the same way that we
have a regular rhythm in seasons, and moon phases and brightness, and many
other things in relationship to the earth. Radial velocities and such
arguments that intrude into the geocentric debate have not the least merit as
there are to many possibilities that could explain them besides heliocentizm. A
first requirement, it seems to me, would be to explain the moon's shadow during
an eclipse. If this cannot be done by the heliocentrists then to debate the
causes of more distant objects is just a futile exercise. (I think it would be
futile in any case, but to each his own.)
Thank you for your indulgence.
With best wishes, Ronald Knarr
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Griffin
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge
On 27 Jul, Steven Jones <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Griffin,
> As regards your question concerning how the celestial mechanics of a
> >particular geocentric model would account for the alleged changing
> radial >velocities of stars, the simplest solution is simply to refer
> you to the >modified Tychonic model, in which, all the planets (except
> the Earth >which is not a planet) accompany the sun which in turn
> rotates around the >Earth once a day.
Dear Mr Jones,
I object to your continual use of the word "alleged". My brother
measures these radial velocities every night that is fine (157
nights last year!) and I assure you that the change in radial
velocities is FACT.
Your comment above does not answer my argument. Stop referring to
other explanations. Even if the sun and all the OTHER planets go
round the earth, the earth is still stationary according to you,
so ALL the stars change their radial velocity relative to the
earth.
I would like YOU to answer the question: How do the stars know to
change their velocities in synchonism with the sun, and why should they
change by exactly twice the velocity of the sun's orbit round the earth? I
have given you a simple explanation of how it happens. Now I would like to
hear your version.
Alan Griffin
Other related posts:
