[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:37:02 +0200
Dear Paul,
I couldn't agree more with you.
I think there might be even more convincing arguments,
although yours are good - but let's see where this leads.
Best wishes,
Regner
Quoting Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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:
