[geocentrism] Dynamical Equivalence
- From: Steven Jones <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:58:43 +0000 (GMT)
Dear Cheryl,
I am delighted that you can easily understand the celestial pole argument and
that you agree with it. The beauty of this particular proof is its simplicity,
and yet many scientists refuse to see it. To this time nobody has yet disproved
it, despite a discussion haven taken place on badastronomy.com on this subject.
Almost four hundred years ago the geocentric astronomer Tycho Brae proposed for
very similar reasons that the Earth cannot orbit the sun, because if so the
stars would then exhibit parallax during the course of a year. Since that time
heliocentrists have dismissed Tycho Brae's point by claiming that the distance
between us and the stars is vast, and therefore parallax is minimal. However,
vast distances to the stars can not be resorted to save the heliocentric model,
because the celestial pole argument uses observational evidence regarding the
pole star turning each night in such away that it does not matter how far away
the stars are. The point is that if we see the pole star describe a circle once
every night because of the alleged rotation of the world causing an observer at
the equator to move 25,132 miles in a day, then why don't we see it describe an
even bigger circle during the coarse of a year when the world has gone a
preposterous 584,336,233 miles around the sun. T
o get
around this, the heliocentrists solution is to claim that the Earth's axis
amazingly always points towards the pole star, but this can be easily refuted
by considering then what would be observed in the south pole. The conclusion is
that it is not possible for the Earth's axis to point at both the north and the
south pole star simultaneously, therefore the heliocentric model must be wrong.
Regarding other stars, parallax has allegedly been found, but it does not prove
that the Earth rotates and orbits the sun, it only proves that something is
moving. Further, parallax data does not conform to the heliocentric model
either for more than half of all recorded values are negative.
There is a program showing how a geostatic and geocentric model would look, its
called Geocentric Universe and it is written by my Dad and I. Currently we have
sold out of version 2.2, however 2005 will be available soon (God-willing). The
fee is to cover postage costs.
In answer to your question about whether space probes launched by Nasa could
prove a rotating world, I believe that had probes like Voyager 1, Voyager 2 and
the Viking landers been real, then this would be Nasa's testimony that the
Earth rotates. In fact, almost everything that Nasa have ever done, gravity
slingshots for example, would prove heliocentrism. However, they are not real
which is why they are so poorly documented, and why only one radio telescope in
the world is capable of receiving signals from the space craft. Further, the
very notion of gravity slingshots being precisely calculated many years in
advance is ridiculous. What Nasa don't realise is that they are claiming a
perpetual motion machine for they assert that after a gravity slingshot towards
a planet the probe would speed up, despite the fact that there is apparently
gravity pulling it back. This is in violation of the second law of
thermodynamics.
Kind Regards,
Steven Jones.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
