[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:47:21 +0000 (GMT)
Regner T
I do not support Geocentrism -- I do support Heliocentrism.
These two theories are mutually exclusive -- if you prove one, you disprove the
other.
Note however that disproof of one does not prove the other.
I offer five propositions which suggest to me that the Heliocentric model
offers the more accurate explanation.
1. Kepler's three planetary laws explain how the Solar System works and
satisfy observation;
2. Newtonian physics explains why Kepler's Laws work;
3. The observed behaviour of gyroscopes et al is adequate demonstration that
the Earth rotates on its axis;
4. The observed six monthly variation between red and blue shift of stellar
spectra is adequate demonstration that the Earth revolves around the Sun;
5. When appropriate allowance is made for the Earth's rotation and
revolution, various endeavours succeed. These include -
a. Fuel estimates for satellite launches are adequate;
b. Ballistic missiles and artillery shells hit their intended targets;
c. The exquisite precision required for successful inter planetary
navigation is achieved.
Paul D
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
