[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 08:33:14 +1000
Therfore would Regner give just one proof of heliocentrism? Jack.
Jack I can do that easily.
We accept the mathmatically correct, and physical reality of orbits by minor
bodies around the major bodies.. We accept for example the moons of the earth
and other planets as a reality based upon this physics. Just as from this we
can accurately predict satellite orbit mechanics around the earth and other
celestial bodies of this solar system. We even accept the observed reality of
the relative motions of binaty star systems as observed..
Now when we come along as geocentrists and insist that in this one specific
case , the roles of the sun and earth are reversed, we are claiming a unique
reality that goes against the norm.. Further our claim is based upon and
determined by theological concepts, outside the normal criteria of physics.
Normally it would appear that the earths rotation around the sun is a self
evident truth.. It is up to us to prove that in respect of the earth alone,
the natural laws as observed in the universe do not apply in this specific
instance.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 6:24 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Proof of heliocentrism
I have decided to start a new thread now that stellar parallax or the
celestial ploes is not a proof for either heliocentrism or geocentrism.
Might it not be quicker for all of us, in our discussion regarding the
helio/geo debate, to ask Regner for just one proof of heliocentrism. So far it
would appear that the M-M etc. experiments are all being interpreted and
corrected by heliocentric theories. This is pointless since it is the helio
idea that is being questioned. The problem, if any with the interferometer
experiments, has to be addressed exactly for what it is and not quetioned by
that which it questions - does that make grammatical sense?. I think it would
be useful to know just what helio's pin their position on. As with evolution it
may be easier to highlight the scientific problems and flaws with
heliocentricity, since that is the current paradigm, rather than spend endless
hours trying to convince helios to consider geocentrism arguments.
Therfore would Regner give just one proof of heliocentrism?
Jack
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1461 - Release Date: 5/22/2008
4:44 PM
Other related posts:
