[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:24:05 +0100
Dear Paul,
Considering the limited amount of time that Regner has said he is able to give
this forum, your e-mail isn't helpful since your are preaching to the
converted. I realise that the more heliocentrists that take part is more than
welcomed, but in this case your contribution is the complete opposite of what
he was asking. Had you not addressed it to him then I don't think it would have
mattered.
Regards
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:47 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
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. Get it
now.
Other related posts:
