[geocentrism] Re: The 5 point challenge
- From: "John Roodt" <johnroodt@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:55:58 +1100
If Phil meant to "dispense with" b) by saying: "THIS IS NOT A PROOF OR AN
ADMISSION THAT THE EARTH REALLY ROTATES" then I'd like to vote to retain b)
So, I vote: a, b and c.
John
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Vote tally so far:
> a) 2
> I have no problem starting with the Michelson-Morley experiment,
> but I would like to have the other four points settled before we begin.
> I can easily see things slide as we progress and I would like to avoid
> that. After all this time in this forum you ought to have some good
> idea of your top contenders.
>
> Regards,
>
> Regner
>
>
> Regner Trampedach wrote:
> > I apologize for the long wait, but lets kick off this challenge:
> > You gave me your five strongest points in favour of a geocentric
> > Universe and I'll respond to each in turn (I'll decide the order).
> >
> > I have actually gotten more than five suggestions from you. If I
> > decided which ones to use, you would cry foul, so I'll need you
> > to vote for the points as listed below. Please make it relatively
> > quick, and very short. Just give me the letters of the 5 points you
> > would like included.
> > The list below is not ordered in any particular way.
> >
> > a) Failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment - No motion of Earth
> > detected.
> > b) No attempts to measure a motion of the Earth has succeeded.
> > c) Observed distributions and radial velocities (red-shifts) of
> > astronomical
> > objects are centered on the Earth
> > d) No equatorial bulge on the Earth, as would be created in the early
> > rapidly
> > spinning molten Earth "theory". The equatorial bulge of Jupiter is
> > clearly seen.
> > e) Deviation from Newtonian gravity in mine-shaft experiments.
> > f) Calculation of spacecraft trajectories are based on a geocentric
> > Universe,
> > and even NASA themselves say that they use Earth as the centre of the
> > reference frame.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > These points are rather vague and I don't know how the author (Robert
> > Sungenis) finds that they relate to the possible motions of Earth. I do
> > suspect, however, that l) is the same as c) - please confirm.
> > g) Center of mass.
> > h) Parallax and retrograde motion.
> > i) Centrifugal and Coriolis forces.
> > j) Arago, Hoek, Airy telescope results.
> > k) Maxwell's equations.
> > l) Quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc.
> > m) The Sagnac experiment.
> > n) False proofs of relativity.
> > o) Difficulties with a rotating and translating earth.
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I have picked up the following points in earlier discussions with you,
> > but they
> > weren't brought up in my call for points. I thought I would give them
> > a chance
> > in case they had been forgotten.
> > p) No head wind - and there is an ether.
> > q) We don't feel movement - how could we stay on Earth if it moved
> > that fast?
> >
> > Remember, we are looking for the strongest physical evidence in
> > support of
> > a geocentric Universe.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Regner
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
