> Gary, > > > I'm puzzled why you believe the firmament is rigid like concrete. The plenum > could be very dense, but flexible enough to allow differential radial > speeds. Robert, you missed the "not" in my second sentence to Philip below. > > One model for it is a vortex of Planck-size particles moving fastest at the > edges of the universe and decreasing in speed to zero at the center....the > Earth, of course. This main structure could have embedded sub-structures > that supply the motion to the galaxies, clusters, star systems, etc. > I have read Dr. Bouw's book "Geocentricity" and where he talks about these Planck-size particles and the plenum being infinitely dense yet allowing the differing radial motions you mention. It sounds like you are in accord with him on this. I'm just plain unqualified to argue aether and plenum on BA just yet. What anyway is this plenum? Is it the same thing as the firmament? Is it the aether? Is the aether the same thing as the firmament? How's that for confusion? > The challenge is to use Genesis as a guide in building a scientifically > correct GC model. > Robert A great motto for the forum, for sure. I agree, of course. Gary Shelton GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Philip, > > > > I guess if everything were locked in a firmament of concrete and spinning > > ultra rigidly, then those stars would indeed follow the sun. But the sun > > and moon do not show us a firmament that is so rigid, as solar eclipses > > would happen every month at a new moon if it were. If things were in > > lockstep in the firmament, the moon would have to travel as fast > > around the > > earth as the sun does. But it clearly does not, as evidences by the moon > > phases. > > > > So, it would follow that the sun could make its annual double > > helix movement > > around the earth and the stars would not necessarily keep that > > same pattern. > > > > Gary > > > > > > > >