[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts? (Supplementary)

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:03:30 -0700 (PDT)

Try this...  my "hail mary"................ 3 diagrams 1 is "what it is not 
based on"...... and 2 are "what it is"....?

Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:        
    -----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:38:46 -0700 (PDT)

             
      Regardless of what size they would be "proportionally" around that axis , 
[earth's orbit] they should at least exist ) The rotation around that annual 
axis is the exact same kind of rotaion with the exact same view opportunity 
with the exact same stars with the same observer, camera..etc..... 
   
  I cant understand why this is so hard.........Nevile, there is much work to 
be done.....i think we need a HC/AC sim in maya or somthing...?

   
Allen,

You are correct, but I can't think of a way that I can make the video clearer.

All,

This is it. We have it. Heliocentrism is disproven. The Emperor has been shown 
to be starkers.

I'll tell you what you should do: Pray. Pray that your eyes be opened to the 
beauty of this really simple disproof. After doing this, contemplate a tennis 
ball. Rotate the tennis ball about an axis. Rotate the tennis ball about 
another axis, more slowly. If the stars are fixed and you are on the tennis 
ball, would you see the exact same sort of thing in either instance? If you 
then answer "yes, I would" to this question, then you have seen that the 
heliocentric model is fundamentally incorrect, as any elementary school project 
could verify. Why? Because the heliocentric model predicts that these views are 
essentially the same, but observation tells us that there are not two such 
views, but only one.

Neville.

image/pjpeg

image/pjpeg

image/pjpeg

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2007