## [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

• From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:46:39 +0000 (GMT)

```Marc V
Here is my problem Marc.
HC says that Earth revolves around the Sun at a distance of 149.6 * 10^6 km; at
a velocity of 29.78 km/s; in a CCW direction (looking from the North);
Mars revolves around the Sun at a distance of 227.92 * 10^6 km; at a velocity
of 24.13 km/s; in a CCW direction (looking from the North);
and has a solid thoretical framework to explain why this is so.
The difference is thus -5.65 km/s in velocity and 78.32 * 10^6 km between
concentric, and essentially circular, orbits.
On the other hand, GS says the Earth is stationary;
Mars revolves (effectively) around the Earth in a CW direction (looking from
the North); at distances varying from 78.32 * 10^6 km and 377.52 * 10^6 km; at
velocities varying from (very roughly) 5.71 * 10^3 km/s and 27.53 * 10^3 km/s;
and has no explanation for these assumptions.
In the GS scenario, assuming we take the closest approach for a rendezvous,
Mars is travelling in the opposite direction from that which the planners of
the mission relied upon, at a velocity difference of 5.72 * 10^3 km/s + 5.65
km/s = 5.73 * 10^3 km/s. This is roughly Earth escape velocity -- a large
percentage of the maximum capability of our best launch vehicles -- about 1000
times the velocity difference expected and in the opposite direction! Should
the GS position be the truth, the chances of a successful rendezvous, if the
mission is based on HC data, are zilch, zippo, nil.
Now a significant percentage of missions end in resounding successes, and the
usual GS response seems to be restricted to the simple unsubstantiated
accusation that the HC fraternity is lying. That's just a tad difficult to
swallow. It is also insulting to the hundreds of thousands of capable,
industrious and dedicated people who labour daily to make these events happen.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: "marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentric <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, 23 August, 2007 11:56:04 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
Thank you Paul for the information. However, we have good reasons to believe
that both HC and GC could be symmetrical and geometrically interchangeable. So,
no matter how many proofs you find to confirm your theory (HC), it doesn't
prove the theory is true! I am not aware of any proof that prove GC to be
impossible.
I know that in the mind of many scientists (and probably in yours), HC is a
fact, not a theory that could be false! But this is due to a state of confusion
between beliefs and facts.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
Sent: 23 août 2007 09:55
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
Marc V
I can't address all of them but I'll have a go at one.
3) The accurately charted paths of numerous space probes which have
visited all 8 planets in the solar system. I don't see where is the problem for
GC!
The people who plan these missions depend on the approx 66000mph velocity of
the Earth in its orbit for success. If it wasn't there then such missions would
all fail. Additionally, I don't think any vehicle is even capable of achieving
just 66000mph let alone 66000 + 25000mph.
Paul D

____________________________________________________________________________________
Get the World's number 1 free email service.
http://mail.yahoo.com.au
```