[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:40:27 +1000

Paul, in this medium, it is difficult to explain motion, especially relative 
planetary motions..  However we can simplify the principles involve to explain 
the error in your assumed figures below, which cause you to conclude, 

" 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."  

Your major error is to neglect to include the aether, which you must admit, 
even if hypothetical, is as valid a consideration as any other hypothetical 
position taken in science, especially as is those applicable to special 
relativity, or any nuclear physics proposition.  

If we interpose a real physical medium called the aether, then we may explain 
your problem quite simply in the following way. 

Consider a swiftly flowing river, in the middle of which is a boat floating 
swiftly past. It would seem an impossibility for our rowboat on the shore to 
ever be able to reach it.

However, if we time it correctly and put our boat into the relatively slower 
water near the shore and row towards the centre of the river, we will be 
quickly taken up into the swiftly flowing stream, and in no time at all be able 
to row up along side, and board the ship..  

Now in case you missed the connection, it is the aether being left out of the 
equation which is the cause of all the confusion. For both sides actually. 

Philip. 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:50 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science


  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 interchangeable. 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. Find out more. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/977 - Release Date: 28/08/2007 
4:29 PM

Other related posts: