Jack L You must be aware that I see the universe in (small scale) heliocentric terms. Yes, I've grown up with this -- I was reading about it well before I reached double digits. I've seen nothing which convinces me otherwise. So anything I say must be understood to be coming from this direction. I don't know what your grounding is in this arena, but I understand that you take a geocentric position. It is still relevant to ask however -- have you read (or watched docos -- Horizon is good) which describe the observations and research of Gallieo, Brahae, Kepler and Newton? The point I'm trying to make is that they didn't explain (in the sense of 'explain away') they observed and reasoned with the hope of discerning what is. Particularly, they sought to correct what observation and reason showed what is not. You may not agree with their conclusions, but they fit observation and reason, and they explain. Because of this, they have utility. You must also be aware that Neville is a died-in-the-wool geocentrist. He is aware of what I'm saying, but prefers to believe a distinctly minority interpretation of an ancient book written by -- scientifically -- ignorant authors in preference to -- scientifically -- less ignorant, recent and contemporary investigators. None of these statements is intended to be derisive, insulting or to convey ridicule. They are an attempt to describe what is. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, 18 July, 2007 7:43:10 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper Dear Paul, I'm not doubting what is said; its just that I thought that elliptical planetary orbits were a device to explain a heliocentric cosmos. Could Neville perhaps help here? Jack ____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo!7 Mail has just got even bigger and better with unlimited storage on all webmail accounts. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html