[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:50:41 +0000 (GMT)

Marc V, et al
As ever -- comments in teal
Paul wrote: «it was stated that an observer on any body in the system would, on 
pure observation and using the same reasoning as most here use to vindicate 
their beliefs, come to the conclusion that he was on a stationary body at the 
centre of the universe. They cannot all be right. I'll say it again -- they 
cannot all be correct and there is no physical reason which gives a bias to the 
Earth based observer.» 
Well Paul, your statement would be sound if it was true that we could find 
other observers on the planets revolving around the Sun. I did not make any 
suggestion that there were such observers in existence but we do not need them 
to make such a simple observation. You personally have drawn attention to the 
supposed interchangeability (see Note 1 below) which highlights the difficulty 
of determining whether or not the Earth is moving. If it were easy to 
distinguish, then a consensus would exist and we here would be looking for 
something else to do with our spare time! But since Earth is the only place 
where we can observe physical life and physical intelligent creatures living on 
it, your statement is biased by (one of) your gods : the Sun. Marc, you may 
dislike what I say and you may have come to dislike me personally but this does 
not give you the right to make disparaging suggestions as what my religious 
beliefs, if any, might be. The Sun has no life
 in it, it was put there for the convenience of the creatures (specially the 
intelligent ones) on Earth. To give as much importance to the Sun as do the 
heliocentrists is (at least) half way worshipping it. I could give you a 
longish list of biblical web sites which espouse heliocentricity and which I 
suspect would be much longer than any similar list of those espousing 
stationary Earth centrism.
Marc V.
Why do you (and et al) continue making these type of comments when there are 
specifics you could denounce, disprove, demolish, dispatch. I invite you again 
to address these comments --
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 theoretical 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.
Paul D
Note 1. you are showing every one on this forum that you can't grasp the "mind 
buggling" problem of symetry between HC and GC and their being geometrically 

 Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail.  

Other related posts: