[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 07:21:26 +0200
Thank you very much, Steven. You are actually the first person in this
forum, to make this list of five points - although it is posted under
a different thread.
A have a few clarifying questions about your points, just to make
sure I understand them correctly (no judgement, interpretation or
prejudice is intended with these questions):
ad 1) What is the failure you refer to?
ad 2) What is the behaviour you refer to?
ad 3) What about the van Allan belts prove a geocentric Solar system?
Thank you kindly for following the rules of this discussion.
Regards,
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Phillip Madsen wrote: (Bernie Brauer in red)
>
>
>
> Anyone who states this as evidence,
> We know we see the sun,
> moon, and stars go around the earth daily ....... is speaking with the
> simplicity of a child who has
> never experienced the illusion caused by two trains side by side in a
> railway station when one begins to move.
>
>
> My reply:
>
>
>
> The simpler model is the more likely, after all, no motion is
> perceived by any of us standing on the Earth, a simple, often
> overlooked and highly important point and one in favour of geocentrism.
> Heliocentrism is the model that is flawed, it promotes concepts that
> are much more complex to grasp than simply "seeing" "...and their
> ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; ..." (Mat
> 13:15 eclectic). Heliocentrism put simply, is a model comparable to
> a model of a person driving a car where the passangers are taught that
> what they see (the trees going by the window etcetera) is actually
> caused by the Earth moving underneath, contrary to all known-senses.
>
>
>
> Phillip Madsen
> wrote:
>
>
>
> What we see is the sun traversing the sky..
> We do not see it circling the earth. The earth from what we see, might
> as well be flat.....
>
>
>
> My reply:
>
>
>
> Not so, when your up in the Himalaias or the Inca mountains, you can
> see the curvature of the horizon. A number of scientific experiments
> have been conducted in which have proved the spherical nature of the
> Earth, whereas many would agree (including Einstein) that you cannot
> prove geocentrism over heliocentrism or vice-versa. However, the nature
> of the sign (mathmatical tool used in this instance for determining
> whether the Earth is concave or convex) is in question regarding the
> spherical shape of the Earth, but that is too deep a discussion to be
> mentioned here.
>
>
>
> Five scientific points in favour of geocentrism:
>
>
>
> 1. Michelson-Morley experiment failure
>
> 2. How pendulum's behave down mine-shafts
>
> 3. The van Allan radiation belts
>
> 4. No centre buldge on the Earth, as would be created in the early
> rapidly spinning molten Earth "theory". The centre bulge of Jupiter is
> clearly seen.
>
> 5. It predicts time and again successful spacecraft launches, sorry,
> but NASA (disclaimer: I don't like them) even say themselves that they
> use Earth as the centre of the reference frame.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Steven.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
