[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Me ( Bernie ) in purple.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: No, I mean the opposite..
Geocentrism is shaky..
the helio postion is NOT based on a presumption that the world moves.
We based our belief on a rotating world upon sound rational science that the
following is observed.
planets all orbit the sun
The Earth is not a planet. Planet means wanderer.
Physics as proven in a laboratory, requires that lighter bodies must orbit a
larger more massive body. Observed and proven.
I know, that's why lighter sun spiral-orbits the more massive Earth. Rock vs.
fire.
That the Earth is not heavier than the sun is proved and observed.
The rational observer must conclude the sun cannot orbit the Earth, but
follow the same laws that mars or venus does.
The irrational observer must conclude the sun cannot orbit the Earth.
That the Earth is the stationary centre of the universe and holding on to an
orbiting sun, is irrational and contrary to already well proved mechanical laws.
That the sun is the stationary centre of the "solar system" and holding on to
an orbiting Earth, is irrational and contrary to already well-proved
mechanical laws.
We hold to our unique position of a stationary world on no obviously
observable phenomena or law of science. We hold to that position purely based
upon the word of God.
We hold to our unique postion of a stationary sun by rejecting out of hand
the obviously observable phenomena of seeing the sun move and feeling no
Earth movement.
Such is contrary to science as currently known, observed and well proven. We
have a most difficult task to prove our case using science, and not basing it
upon our presumption that the Word of God cannot err.
Heliocentrists have a most difficult task to prove their case using real,
hard, unhypothetical science and not basing it upon their presumption
that the Word of Satan ( Kabbala ) cannot err.
If it was just basic observation, Roberts Bennett and Sungenis would have no
need for such a comprehensive book as GWW.
If the Heliocentric, Theoretical Science Establishment did not have access to
HUNREDS OF BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS to disseminate
their propaganda and viewpoints, Roberts Bennett and Sungenis would have no
need for such a comprehensive book as GWW.
To confirm our point we must add to those established scientific laws, as
ennunciated by Paul, something new and prove it,
Paul in the Bible, or Paul Deema?
NOT, I repeat not seek to destroy them.
Why not seek to destroy incorrect scientific "laws"?
Philip.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
