[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentrism" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:59:20 -0400
Hi PD,
It is entirely irrelevant whether the Earth rotates or not, or revolves or
not (except as discussed in my exchange with Martin S). The subject is
satellite periods as predicted in the GS – geostatic – system. That means
the Earth does not move. ‘Does not move’ includes ‘does not rotate’ and
‘does not revolve’. No Robert, you are confused. The subject was, at my
instigation so I know, the orderly progression of satellite orbits in a
heliocentric system vs the chaotic progression in the geocentric system.
This is deja-vu all over again. The chaos comes not from the GS system, but
the incorrect periods and misunderstanding of the GS system.
Now it is true that I had only two geocentric points to plot on my graph and
that a curve cannot be defined with just two points. But since there was no
reference I could find describing the geocentric position
How about 3 lines above? “the GS – geostatic – system. That means the Earth
does not move. ‘Does not move’ includes ‘does not rotate’ and ‘does not
revolve’.”
and you declined my request for data/formula(e), it was the best I could
do.
The GS period is the period measured by a fixed observatory on the fixed
earth - the transit time from one zenith to the next. EG, the GS period for
one of the earth’s satellites, the Sun, is 24 hours, since that is what is
observed. Now, what are the observed periods for the artificial
satellites??
So pervasive is the HC brainwashing that we can’t even conceive of a static
earth – exactly what we directly observe! How subtle is the demon – we don’
t even believe our eyes…
That the Earth does not move as you claim or that the Earth does move as
most others claim, is, as I pointed out (see above) irrelevant. The
calculation will return the same numbers regardless.
Are the GS and HC lunar periods the same? Are the geo-stat periods the
same? Aristotle, anyone?
Acceptance of contradictions is irrational; discourse is meaningless.
Christian realism has no common ground with agnosticism or nihilism.
New homework. Research the meaning of geostatic – geocentrism in the strict
sense…. again.
The probability of an event is generally represented as a real number
between 0 and 1, inclusive. (Omission now included and underlined) Isn't
this amending the reference so as to support your contention? (I'm assuming
you corrected this "omission" yourself? I would find the coincidence of
someone else having so fortuitously done so, quite remarkable).
Here’s one of the links with ‘inclusive’ included:
http://newton.engj.ulst.ac.uk/crt/rely/rely.pdf
<http://newton.engj.ulst.ac.uk/crt/rely/rely.pdf> ,P.2, Definition 1.2.
Only the underlining was added, as stated
RB
Other related posts:
