[geocentrism] Re: Dynamical Equivalence
- From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:07:51 -0500
Steven -- Unless as you say the earth drags all the stars with it when it
makes its orbit around the sun, the atheist/helios have no explanation for
why the poles remain fixed. That is obvious even to me who avoids math
because it gives me a headache.
This proof is easy to understand. Obviously the poles would be all over the
place, especially the south pole. The heliocentric model makes as much sense
as lizards' scales turning into feathers over billions of years, of their
front legs turning into wings and their back legs growing long and skinny
and turning into the stick-legs of a bird, of their teeth nubbing back into
their skull, and their noses turning into beaks -- and LEAVING ABSOLUTELY NO
EVIDENCE, no fossils anywhere.
I would be interested to know what the atheists have to say about this, how
they would explain the poles not going nuts.
Are there any animated models that show what things would or could look like
with a nonspinning, geocentric earth regarding the orbits of the sun, moon,
earth and planets?
In your opinion what kind of things, if any, would a space probe be able to
document regarding this, to me, huge difference?
I'm still wondering why NASA can't document the Copernican hypothesis they
have embraced with timelapse pictures to prove something some of us at least
down here on earth would be mighty interested in finding out. If nothing
else, if they could document that the earth is turning. In your opinion is
this even theoretically possible? I still don't see why they couldn't.
Respectfully,
Cheryl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Jones" <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Dynamical Equivalence
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> The rotating world is essential for worldly acentric cosmology, the
blasphemous belief where the centre of the universe is nowhere and the
circumference of which is everywhere. Such a confused understanding is not
in harmony with the bible and therefore should be firmly rejected.
>
>
>
> Provided the Earth rotates, then even if the cosmos is geocentric the
geocentric model merely becomes a special instance of the heliocentric one,
where one has simply just pushed the sun of centre.
>
>
>
> A very good example of this can be found at this web site:
>
>
>
> http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/JAVA/ptolemy.html
>
>
>
> Three models are presented clearly in the java animation:
>
>
>
>
> Extremely unusual Ptolemiac model where the world revolves.
>
>
>
> Heliocentric model
>
>
>
> Modified Tychonic model
>
>
>
>
>
> What is not immediately obvious is that all three of the models assume a
rotating world, therefore all three models are dynamically equivalent.
>
>
>
> Key features in the geocentric models are:
>
>
>
>
> The World completes one revolution on its axis once every 23 hours 56
minutes, rotating west to east, which is why the stars are seen to rise in
the east and set in the west in the same time.
>
>
>
> The sun orbits the Earth once every 365.25 days which explains the
transit of the sun through the ecliptic (the background of stars).
>
>
>
> The moon takes about 28 days to orbit the Earth travelling west to
east, which is about 50.5 minutes slower than the world rotates in the same
direction and therefore explains why the moon can be seen to rise in the
east and set in the west.
>
>
>
> The stars do not move.
>
>
>
>
>
> No comparison of the heliocentric model to the geocentric ones is
necessary because only one thing has changed between them. Instead of the
sun orbiting the Earth once a year the Earth orbits the sun once a year.
This is dynamical equivalence, but it is not biblical for the Bible stresses
that the Earth cannot be moved, and therefore does not rotate.
>
>
>
> We then derive the conclusion that the universe is both geocentric and
geostatic, a comparison is now necessary between the aforementioned models
and the new geostatic and geocentric model.
>
>
>
>
> The World completes one revolution on its axis once every 23 hours 56
minutes, rotating west to east, which is why the stars are seen to rise in
the east and set in the west in the same time.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG
>
>
>
> The World stands stationary at the centre of the universe, no motion is
attributed to the world.
>
>
>
>
> The sun orbits the Earth once every 365.25 days which explains the
transit of the sun through the ecliptic (the background of stars).
>
>
>
>
> WRONG
>
> The sun orbits the Earth once every twenty four hours, which explains the
days.
>
>
>
>
> The moon takes about 28 days to orbit the Earth travelling west to
east, which is about 50.5 minutes slower than the world rotates in the same
direction and therefore explains why the moon can be seen to rise in the
east and set in the west.
>
>
>
>
> WRONG
>
> The moon takes about 24 hours 50.5 minutes to orbit the Earth travelling
east to west which is the opposite direction.
>
>
>
>
> The stars do not move.
>
>
>
>
>
> WRONG
>
> The stars orbit the World once every 23 hours 56 minutes east to west.
>
>
>
> We can conclude that this is not dynamical equivalence. If then a
geostatic and geocentric model is physically different from a heliocentric
or geocentric model where the world does rotate, we should be able to
predict discrepancies or differences between the two to prove once and for
all which model is true.
>
>
>
> This has been done and one such example is at:
>
>
>
> www.midclyth.supanet.com/page32.htm
>
> I urge you all to study the celestial poles argument and tell me what you
think.
>
>
>
> Yours in Christ,
>
>
>
> Steven Jones.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
>
>
Other related posts:
