Re: Stationary Earth

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:05 pm

Airy's failure.

Proof that the Earth is stationary.

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:17 pm

Sagnac Experiment.

Proof of the aether.

by **strangelove** Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:26 pm

Michelson-Morley Experiment.

Proof the Earth is stationary.

by Grandpa Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:43 am

1 Corinthians 1:17-31

¹⁷For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

¹⁸For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

¹⁹For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

²⁰Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

²¹For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

²²For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

²³But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

²⁴But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

²⁵Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

²⁶For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

²⁷But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

²⁸And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

²⁹That no flesh should glory in his presence.

³⁰But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
³¹That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

This reminds me a little bit about the conversation God had with Job, when Job started questioning God. God answered him back and said Tell me if you can, How did I put the stars in the heavens and hang them on nothing?

3000 - 4000 yrs later and we still don't know.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:27 am

Here's a link to the forum and thread. A Science teacher with a Master's Degree (GitRDunn) and an Astophysicist (FaithfulOne) are involved.

All I'm getting is Theory of Relativity makes a Geo model impossible. Period.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/235469-Heliocentricity-vs-Geocentricity

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:43 pm

"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason, why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers."

- Isaac Newton to Bentley admitting that action at a distance involved in gravity is ABSURD. As recorded in Edwin Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J. (1980), p. 266

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:04 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Here's a link to the forum and thread. A Science teacher with a Master's Degree (GitRDunn) and an Astophysicist (FaithfulOne) are involved.

All I'm getting is Theory of Relativity makes a Geo model impossible. Period.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/235469-Heliocentricity-vs-Geocentricity

Quote from your astrophysicist opponent.

"there is no other way to explain the retrograde (apparent) motions of the superior planets except with earth orbiting the sun."

Wow, just wow. Are you starting to see how blinkered even the pro's are? This is just basic relative motion.

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:35 pm

I think your doing well there PPS.

One little mistake is when you presented the online orrery, you said change the 'follow object' to sun. Thats should have been Earth. No biggie.

Notice how your opponents present a bunch of kinematic evidence straight off the bat, without mentioning laws of physics or any forces, and when you squash that...then they act all high and mighty claiming that what they meant was kinematic evidence COMBINED with Newtonian physics and various forces.

They will never say...oh hey...yeah your right...lets move onto forces and physics.

I experience the same thing all the time. It's important to get them to agree that...

1) No raw observation can distinguish between the two models. FACT.

Nothing really to deal with at the moment. We'll see what your astrophysicist friend comes up with. I notice you mentioned the 2 body problem and he was silent on that in his next post.

Be careful when talking about Earth as the barycentre. I'm not sure on this one myself. I think if we have a turning aether which produces all necessary forces then we dont really need a barycentre per se. I'll talk to my contact a little more on that one. Very Happy

by **strangelove** Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:57 pm

"Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The 'fictitious' forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The 'fictitious forces' are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a 'field of gravitation' in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz. systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity."

- C. Møller "The theory of relativity", page 113, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:48 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Quote from your astrophysicist opponent.

"there is no other way to explain the retrograde (apparent) motions of the superior planets except with earth orbiting the sun."

Wow, just wow. Are you starting to see how blinkered even the pro's are? This is just basic relative motion.

Yes, I am. Reading your debate helped a load. GitRDunn and others are folks I've known online for awhile, and many have respect for me based on our forum history. Even Luke34 had to admit it was a literate argument, even though he rejects anything but Theistic Evo.

I'm gonna backtrack and hammer on kinematics DEVOID of any consideration of forces.

I'm anxious to get on to the anti-relativity info and have a consumate grasp of everything.

I can say this here in near-rage and utter frustration... I AM SO PISSED THAT I HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY INDOCTRINATED ALL MY LIFE!!!! AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you link me to a thread (or start one) that overviews the entire Ashkenazic agenda through science and mathematics, etc.? Stuff like "Einstein's job" to come up with Relativity, etc.

Good Gawd, this is all SO bogus. I've been gang-mind-raped. (Excuse my outburst.) I'm motivated to expose this at its core for what it is.

Thanx for your help. I'll get through kindergarten soon, I hope. :-D

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:14 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:

Yes, I am. Reading your debate helped a load. GitRDunn and others are folks I've known online for awhile, and many have respect for me based on our forum history. Even Luke34 had to admit it was a literate argument, even though he rejects anything but Theistic Evo.

I'm gonna backtrack and hammer on kinematics DEVOID of any consideration of forces.

I'm anxious to get on to the anti-relativity info and have a consumate grasp of everything.

I can say this here in near-rage and utter frustration... I AM SO PISSED THAT I HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY INDOCTRINATED ALL MY LIFE!!!! AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Would you link me to a thread (or start one) that overviews the entire Ashkenazic agenda through science and mathematics, etc.? Stuff like "Einstein's job" to come up with Relativity, etc.

Good Gawd, this is all SO bogus. I've been gang-mind-raped. (Excuse my outburst.) I'm motivated to expose this at its core for what it is.

Thanx for your help. I'll get through kindergarten soon, I hope. :-D

LOLOLOL
My Doc is brilliant.

ya, PPS.....the bad guys have a long long time to work all this out. They've snuffed well-meaning popes over it.

The Lord even said His people had nuthin on the sons of darkness when it comes to the scheme. Mind you, we're not generally looking for the UberLies....reckon that's why He said be wise as serpents.

The way i look at it now, if the world says it, its a lie.

They're devious. and nasty.
But its all Kabbalah...nothing more.

even the 6 million.
Love you buddy.

Love you Doc....ttyl
(notice the ratching up for a FF a la Iran (NY they say...pffft...bull sh**)

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:38 am

Newton looked at the Mishkan and the Temples as the Jews did - a representation of the universe as created by G-d. In manuscript after manuscript he made detailed analyses and drawings trying to understand the hidden meanings.

He worked out an analysis of the amah or cubit, titled, "A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and Cubits of the several Nations."[12] Newton was especially interested in the cubit as he thought it would allow him to determine the exact circumference of the earth in his studies on gravity. He believed that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built using the cubit as its basic unit of measurement, and he believed the Egyptians had learned the secret of Solomon's Temple from Hiram the Phoenician king of Tyre who Solomon hired to assist in the construction.[13]

He also believed Jewish ideas were the basis for Greek mathematics and philosophy. In his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, he studied world history and determined that the Greeks had falsely predated their history by 300-400 years to cover-up that they had received their ideas in mathematics and philosophy from the Jews. For example, he hypothesized that Plato traveled to Egypt where he made contact with Jews.

In the introduction to his Chronology, Newton stated that "The Greek Antiquities are full of poetical fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in Prose, before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian." He also points out what he calls "uncertainties" in the chronology of the Romans.

One of the fascinating conclusions of Newton was that the configuration of the Temple with the altar as a central point "was a reflection of the cosmic, heliocentric harmony of G-d's universe."[14] He believed the ancient Jews knew the sun was the center of the Solar System!

Newton's friend John Locke reported a conversation where Newton explained the creation of matter by G-d as a process of drawing back - what we know as tzimtzum. Newton's view of Kabbalah is still being debated by scholars, but it appears he believed the original Kabbalah had been corrupted by the idolatrous Egyptians in their contact with the Jews, and this corruption led to mistakes in Greek philosophy and especially Christianity where he attributed the erroneous idea of the Trinity to kabbalistic concepts of emanation,[15] neither of which I understand nor can explain.

Another interesting point is that Newton believed G-d created and continues to create all matter, constantly and everywhere. Some have attributed his source to Kabbalah, but it appears he developed it without recourse to Kabbalah, and in the secret manuscripts he blames Kabbalists for confusing this point - leading to a belief in primordial matter instead of Creation from nothing.

How today's secularists and strident atheists will deal with the idea of the world's greatest scientist being such a devout believer in G-d and divinely revealed scripture is still to be determined. But already, in G-d is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens attacks Newton as a religious fool who dabbled in alchemy.[16] What Hitchens omits is that serious scientists are now recreating Newton's experiments which he indeed called alchemy. Instead of a mystical quest to create a "philosopher's stone" to turn lead into gold, these scientists believe Newton was using ancient texts to develop a theory of matter, and his experiments anticipated modern chemistry.[17]

In summary, it is interesting that arguably the greatest scientist of all time, devoted his life to uncovering the secrets of Creation provided by G-d. Along with Rambam, he saw no conflict between science and G-d's revealed Truth in scripture, providence, and the physical world.

He worked out an analysis of the amah or cubit, titled, "A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews and Cubits of the several Nations."[12] Newton was especially interested in the cubit as he thought it would allow him to determine the exact circumference of the earth in his studies on gravity. He believed that the Great Pyramid at Giza was built using the cubit as its basic unit of measurement, and he believed the Egyptians had learned the secret of Solomon's Temple from Hiram the Phoenician king of Tyre who Solomon hired to assist in the construction.[13]

He also believed Jewish ideas were the basis for Greek mathematics and philosophy. In his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, he studied world history and determined that the Greeks had falsely predated their history by 300-400 years to cover-up that they had received their ideas in mathematics and philosophy from the Jews. For example, he hypothesized that Plato traveled to Egypt where he made contact with Jews.

In the introduction to his Chronology, Newton stated that "The Greek Antiquities are full of poetical fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in Prose, before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian." He also points out what he calls "uncertainties" in the chronology of the Romans.

One of the fascinating conclusions of Newton was that the configuration of the Temple with the altar as a central point "was a reflection of the cosmic, heliocentric harmony of G-d's universe."[14] He believed the ancient Jews knew the sun was the center of the Solar System!

Newton's friend John Locke reported a conversation where Newton explained the creation of matter by G-d as a process of drawing back - what we know as tzimtzum. Newton's view of Kabbalah is still being debated by scholars, but it appears he believed the original Kabbalah had been corrupted by the idolatrous Egyptians in their contact with the Jews, and this corruption led to mistakes in Greek philosophy and especially Christianity where he attributed the erroneous idea of the Trinity to kabbalistic concepts of emanation,[15] neither of which I understand nor can explain.

Another interesting point is that Newton believed G-d created and continues to create all matter, constantly and everywhere. Some have attributed his source to Kabbalah, but it appears he developed it without recourse to Kabbalah, and in the secret manuscripts he blames Kabbalists for confusing this point - leading to a belief in primordial matter instead of Creation from nothing.

How today's secularists and strident atheists will deal with the idea of the world's greatest scientist being such a devout believer in G-d and divinely revealed scripture is still to be determined. But already, in G-d is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens attacks Newton as a religious fool who dabbled in alchemy.[16] What Hitchens omits is that serious scientists are now recreating Newton's experiments which he indeed called alchemy. Instead of a mystical quest to create a "philosopher's stone" to turn lead into gold, these scientists believe Newton was using ancient texts to develop a theory of matter, and his experiments anticipated modern chemistry.[17]

In summary, it is interesting that arguably the greatest scientist of all time, devoted his life to uncovering the secrets of Creation provided by G-d. Along with Rambam, he saw no conflict between science and G-d's revealed Truth in scripture, providence, and the physical world.

http://www.chabadshore.com/page.asp?pageID=%7BEFCC0F2F-5A38-4247-9ADF-D588BFF0E91C%7D&displayAll=1

aint nuthin but majik.

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:44 am

don't forget these guys PPS

they have an agenda. and they started the Royal Institute of "Science"

Rabbinic families all.

Freemasons have always been in the forefront of the scientific community; from the founding of the British Royal Society to today’s NASA programme in the United States.
The following is a short and incomplete list ¹ of Brethren who have contributed to the exploration of outer space.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/spacemason/

by PneumaPsucheSoma Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:06 am

zone wrote:

LOLOLOL
My Doc is brilliant.

ya, PPS.....the bad guys have a long long time to work all this out. They've snuffed well-meaning popes over it.

The Lord even said His people had nuthin on the sons of darkness when it comes to the scheme. Mind you, we're not generally looking for the UberLies....reckon that's why He said be wise as serpents.

The way i look at it now, if the world says it, its a lie.

They're devious. and nasty.
But its all Kabbalah...nothing more.

even the 6 million.
Love you buddy.

Love you Doc....ttyl
(notice the ratching up for a FF a la Iran (NY they say...pffft...bull sh**)

Yeah, I've spent the last couple of months UNlearning and wrapping my wee-pea-bwain around all this. Having to argue with every living human on the planet is just ridiculous. What an agenda, but I refuse to give praise to any success of lies.

LET GOD BE TRUE...

I'm just thankful to know the truth. Better late than never. I've already begun sharing and teaching this, and others are receiving it.

Ultimately, I need to tie every facet of it all together back beyond the Diaspora. There needs to be a total expose'. Anonymous might be wise.

by PneumaPsucheSoma Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:41 am

Found...

staticearth.com

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:18 am

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Found...

staticearth.com

Try FixedEarth.com [passionate and very interesting, humerous, but not the best scientific arguments]

EDITED TO ADD:

http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/ [By FAR the most scientifically competant! I really want their book]

http://www.geocentricbible.com/index.htm

http://www.geocentricity.com/ [pioneer in the field Gerardous Bouw]

http://www.crownofchrist.net/geocentrism.html

http://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/ [very interesting site with other issues mingled in to geocentrism]

http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page78.htm

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:36 am

check your PM pps

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:11 pm

historical christian theorists

http://www.christianity.co.nz/science3.htm

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:16 pm

dunno if you have this here Doc:

Airy's experiment

Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.

http://geocentricperspective.com/Airy.htm

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:21 pm

zone wrote:dunno if you have this here Doc:

Airy's experiment

Good work sister, if you wanna see this experiment explained in laymens terms see the youtube vid at the top of this page.

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:24 pm

'smart guys' denying the bible again. no limit to what they'll say.

Why does the Bible say the earth does not move?

A. In both verses quoted below, the italicised text which says the world cannot be moved seems out of place, and these may be examples of cosmological changes made during the hellenisation campaign initiated by Antiochus IV.

Psalm 93:1-2:

The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Psalm 96:10:

Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Daniel 8:11 says the little horn takes away the "constant", indicating Antiochus IV stamped out knowledge of the earth's diurnal rotation. It may have been a reaction to the discoveries of the astronomers like Seleucus about the nature of the universe. If there were no rigid sky, belief in Zeus was threatened, because Zeus was identified with the rigid sky that held the stars. Adding statements that the earth is fixed in sacred texts would help dispell doubts about the geocentric system.

http://tcc.customer.sentex.ca/FAQ/FAQ_RBC.html

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:27 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Good work sister, if you wanna see this experiment explained in laymens terms see the youtube vid at the top of this page.

mkay doc.
thanks, i will....if i can figger out this thing with the buttons on it:lol!: Stationary Earth - Page 8 Baby-tv-1

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:31 pm

PPS rocket scientist opponent:

Objection:

The Coriolis effect is more interesting because it reveals more clearly what happens with a change in coordinate systems. In a rotating coordinate system, it appears as a force. But there isn't a force. In an inertial coordinate system, the accelerations caused by the rotation become immediately apparent. The geocentric model needs to come up with an explanation for the force it sees.

Answer:

Lense-Thirring effect from the spinning universe and a fixed Earth. It might be time to hit those folks up with some expert quotes dude. Otherwise it could be considered entrapment/baiting. pirat

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:32 pm

"Ma'amar Mevo HaShemesh" - A booklet (in Hebrew) by Rabbi Pinchas David Weberman, editor of Sefer Hatekhuna of R Hayim Vital, which "proves" that heliocentrism is heresy.

This is not directly related to the ban on the books, but it is highly relevant to the issues being discussed. The author's argument is that there is no traditional basis for this model and that the consensus of the Acharonim was to reject it as heresy. In this he is quite correct; nevertheless, the heliocentric model of the solar system is valid.

~

In 2004-2005, three of Rabbi Slifkin's books were banned as heretical by a large group of distinguished rabbinic authorities from the Charedi (ultra-Orthodox) community. The ban was rejected by Rabbi Slifkin and his mentors, and prompted a widespread backlash. This webpage links to a collection of resources concerning this controversial ban.

http://zootorah.com/controversy/controversy.html

too bad we dont read hebrew:farao:

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:55 pm

THE GALILEO PROJECT

Guldin, Paul

1. Dates
Born: St. Gall, Switzerland, 12 June 1577
Died: Graz, Austria (Ge), 3 Nov 1643
Dateinfo: Dates Certain
Lifespan: 66
2. Father
Occupation: Unknown
No information on financial status.
3. Nationality
Birth: St. Gall, Switzerland
Career: Italy and Germany
Death: Graz, Austria
4. Education
Schooling: Collegio Romano, D.D.
1609, he was sent to Rome by the Jesuit order for further education. He studied at the Collegio Romano under Clavius. I assume a B.A. As a Jesuit he would have had a doctorate in theology, even though he does not appear to have advanced to the fourth vow.
5. Religion
Affiliation: Jew, Catholic.
He was of Jewish descent, but his parents were protestant and he was raised as such. But in 1597 he converted to Catholicism and entered the Jesuit order, changing his name from Habakkuk to Paul. It is of interest that the order recognized his talents rather late; although he received the full education, he remained a "spiritual coadjutor" and was not admitted to the fourth vow. Can this mean that the order chose not to recognize the talents of a Jew?
6. Scientific Disciplines
Primary: Mathematics
Subordinate: Mechanics
In mechanics he worked on centers of gravity in general, of the earth in particular.
7. Means of Support
Primary: Church Life, Academia
Secondary: Art
He began work as a goldsmith and worked as such in several German towns.
After becoming a Jesuit and receiving his education, he taught mathematics at the Jesuit colleges in Rome and Graz (1617).
When a severe illness forced him to suspend his lecturing, he was sent to Vienna (1623), where he became a professor at the university. In 1629, he was posted to Sagan to the Jesuit gymnasium established by Wallenstein, but returned eventually to Vienna.
1637, he returned to Graz, where he died in 1643.
8. Patronage
Type: Court Official
He was influential at the court of the Emperor Ferdinand II. Kepler had a short correspondence with him on account of this.
9. Technological Involvement
Types: None
10. Scientific Societies
Memberships: None
Sources
Franz Hammer, Neue deutsche Biographie, (Berlin, 1952- ), 7, 304a.
M. Cantor, Vorlesungen ueber Geschichte der Mathematik, 2, (Leipzig, 1900), 840-4. [QA26.C2]
Compiled by:
Richard S. Westfall
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
Indiana University

http://galileo.rice.edu/Catalog/NewFiles/guldin.html

tsk.
those Jesuits.

farao

by zone Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:31 pm

Martin Luther mocked Copernicus by calling him a “foolish Pole” for discovering that the Earth went around the Sun

LUTHER FOR PREZ.

Mikolaj Kopernik - Polish astronomer who produced a workable model of the solar system with the sun in the center (1473-1543)

Copernicus, Nicolaus Copernicus

by PneumaPsucheSoma Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:40 pm

Strangelove wrote:PPS rocket scientist opponent:

Objection:

The Coriolis effect is more interesting because it reveals more clearly what happens with a change in coordinate systems. In a rotating coordinate system, it appears as a force. But there isn't a force. In an inertial coordinate system, the accelerations caused by the rotation become immediately apparent. The geocentric model needs to come up with an explanation for the force it sees.

Answer:

Lense-Thirring effect from the spinning universe and a fixed Earth. It might be time to hit those folks up with some expert quotes dude. Otherwise it could be considered entrapment/baiting.

Yes, I was going to counter with Lense-Thirring, make a fee quotes, and steer the convo back to stand-alone kinematics with a brief historical perspective. Then follow-up with the YouTubes and some other gleened info before moving to forces.

RevLogos is an actual Rocket Scientist. He's Amill, and appreciates my stance against Dialectic-driven Ideology.

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:43 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Yes, I was going to counter with Lense-Thirring, make a fee quotes, and steer the convo back to stand-alone kinematics with a brief historical perspective. Then follow-up with the YouTubes and some other gleened info before moving to forces.

RevLogos is an actual Rocket Scientist. He's Amill, and appreciates my stance against Dialectic-driven Ideology.

Then its even more surprising he hasnt already considered the answer for the opposite frame of reference.

This aint rocket science ya know! lol!

by PneumaPsucheSoma Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:51 pm

Strangelove wrote:

Then its even more surprising he hasnt already considered the answer for the opposite frame of reference.

This aint rocket science ya know!

Yeah, exactly. I'm treading carefully in a sense because I think he's the best source for confirming the parallel kinematics for anyone else. He hasn't ever really considered Geo and, like everyone else, doesn't really know anything but what he knows. I'm gonna possibly start referring to the Neo-Tychonic model as Geo-Helio for the benefit of those who are stuck on Ptolemy and epicycles. Whadaya think? Good move or no?

by **strangelove** Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:53 pm

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Yeah, exactly. I'm treading carefully in a sense because I think he's the best source for confirming the parallel kinematics for anyone else. He hasn't ever really considered Geo and, like everyone else, doesn't really know anything but what he knows. I'm gonna possibly start referring to the Neo-Tychonic model as Geo-Helio for the benefit of those who are stuck on Ptolemy and epicycles. Whadaya think? Good move or no?

Uhm.....well, you've just confused the heck outta me with your new term and I been researching this thing for years...

.....so I'd say no...bad move.

by Sponsored content