[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:01:14 +0100
Dear Paul,
You are right I do not share your heliocentric belief. I'm quite satisfied that
heliocentrism has not been proven scientifically but that the geocentric case
has. GWW is a book that perhaps for the first time, has brought together much
of the scientific evidence for geocentrism and the obvious prejudicial way in
which it has been, not just dismissed, but eradicated from the text books. To
me this gives even more credence to the Biblical account of creation. The same
goes for evolution and the materialistic explanation that everything came from
nothing with no external help. Scientifically speaking this must be the
bizarrest idea ever conceived, because it is utterly impossible whereas a
creator makes plain common sense.
To be fair can you give me an example of a recent and contemporary,
investigation, but preferably a scientifically verifiable experiment in the
same way that the interferometry experiments and the water filled telescopes
were verifiable?
Beat regards
Jack
PS I received your e-mail is in very small type similar to this 'This is an
example of 8point . Can you tell me when you get this reply what size you
estimate my type example to be and what size your original appears to be?
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 9:27 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
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
Other related posts:
