[geocentrism] Re: aether & kepler's 3rd law
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:21:59 +0000 (GMT)
Robert B
In a recent post, I offered you an olive branch. Did you take it or stomp on
it? I ask, because in my part of the world, to call someone a mule is not a
compliment. I'll be more precise -- it is the negation of a compliment.
Regarding the rabbit in the hat -- I could substitute a number of illusions
here, at least one of which you may have difficulty wriggling out from under.
I'm sure you understand my intent, and nth degree of definition would be
unnecessary if you were to show a modicum of accomodation instead of merely
splitting hairs. Answer with an included caveat if you wish, but if you are
interested in debating the issue, then please debate -- please don't evade!
I'm well aware that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be correct.
Can we put that behind us?
You said You have filled in 2 points correctly…. So build on the knowledge used
in those 2 computations and fill in the rest of the incomplete GS points for
satellites… I'm going to assume, in the absence of your agreement, that you are
referring to the superimposed orbits ie the Moon's 24.86h and the
geosynchronous satellite's infinite period. These were not computations --
these data were gleaned from GS discussion and I don't know how many times I've
asked for the means of GS computation, but no one seems able and/or willing to
offer that information.
The calculation is the same for all. You'll need to give me more clues. You
see, if I use the generally accepted formulae to calculate orbital
characteristics (as plotted), the observed behaviour is found to agree with the
calculated results. Yet you say the calculation is the same for all -- GS and
HC presumably.
Just to clarify a point -- 'observed behaviour' in an HC scenario includes
Earth rotation of once per 23h 56m 4.09...s. This, you may claim, is not
observed, and in the strictest sense, this view is supported. But this is true
for all such observations. As has been pointed out by others, if you observe
the universe from the surface of any planet or satellite of any planet in the
Solar System, your observation will be the same as it is on the Earth -- that
you are the centre of the universe, unmoving, and all else orbits you. Your
multiple references to mutual exclusivity applies here also. Ultimately, your
assertions rest entirely upon a narrow interpretation of words written by men
in a time of ignorance.
Now my acceptance that the Earth rotates on its axis in 23h ... may not be
directly observable, as stated in the previous paragraph, but there is evidence
that it does rotate. Two items. One - as Neville J remarked in a recent post,
the geosynchronous satellite is one -- it was doing 6000+ mph just before
entering orbit, no braking was applied, where did the velocity go? And it obeys
those formulae for orbital characteristics. Two - if I experiment with a
gymballed spinning gyroscope, I discover that the flywheel behaves in a quite
predictable manner when its frame is rotated in different planes. If I leave
the gyroscope spinning but its frame held -- apparently -- stationary, I
observe that it behaves as though it were being manipulated just as before,
except more slowly. I am entitled to believe that it is being manipulated by
the -- apparently -- stationary object to which the frame is attached ie the
Earth. And to head off any misunderstanding, I'm referring to the
gyroscope's frame -- not frames of reference.
Do you have any similar experiments which imply that the Earth is stationary,
especially does not rotate?
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
