>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
>>wrote:

>>>>If the earth and moon are orbiting a mutual COM, the earth MUST be
>>>>moving.

>>>1.  As I pointed out the RELATIVE motions in the heliocentric model
>>>and the neoTychoan model are virtually eqivalent; however, the centers
>>>of mass and the forces are not all the same.  

>>>2.  In the heliocentric model the Earth-moon system rotate about their
>>>own local center of mass which is located somewhere below the surface
>>>of the Earth but not at the Earth's center.

>>>3.  In the neoTychoan model the COM of the universe is colocated at
>>>the Earth's center.  That COM (colocated at the Earth's center) is at
>>>complete rest in that model.  The moon revolves around "that" COM (of
>>>the universe) and not merely around the Earth  The distinction is that
>>>the Earth is not merely some free floating body in the neoTychoanic
>>>model but is also colocated at the Center of Mass of the entire
>>>Universe.   It is a distinction missed by Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
>>>Isaak and virtually every other secular/atheist.

>>What you have failed to address in any of your five posts are two
>>related facts:

>>1) The sun and moon are real objects with mass and those masses
>>therefore affect the location of the COM.
>>2) The relative positions of the sun and moon are constantly changing
>>relative to each other, and thus the location of the COM must also be
>>changing unless somehow balanced.

>>What balances the _changing_relative_positions_ of the sun and moon so
>>that the COM remains fixed at the center of the earth?

>> .

>>>Everything above has been asked and answered.  Ready for the admission
>>>and retraction?

>>You have not addressed the changing relative positions of the sun and
>>moon which must change the position of the COM unless balanced by a
>>changing external force or mass.

>>Until you can explain that your anti-science label remains firmly
>>affixed.

>He is now claiming that the Earth sits at the COM of the Universe.

>I would say he is mistaken for the following line of reasoning.

>1) If the Universe is finite then there can be no object within that
>does not move with respect to the COM. It is  possible to imagine such
>a fantastically improbably structure, such as two identical objects
>orbiting a stationary one, but in the real Universe such a system
>would immediately begin to decay from perfection due even to such tiny
>effects infra-red photon radiation from the two bodies not quite
>matching up.

>2) If, OTOH, the Universe is infinite, then it does not have a COM. I
>dare you to attempt the integration. This is probably irrelevant as
>the Universe is observably finite unless the rules change
>significantly just beyond what we can see.  Due to the expansion of
>the Universe you will reach an event horizon at a certain distance
>where the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light. Beyond that
>point the Universe effective does not exist relative to you, thus:
>finite; thus paragraph 1.