From: Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:12:26 -0400
Local: Fri, Apr 13 2012 7:12 pm
Subject: Re: Tony misses the point (the changing relative positions of the sun and moon) five times in a row.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:02:57 -0400, John Vreeland
>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:08 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
>>>>If the earth and moon are orbiting a mutual COM, the earth MUST be
>>>1. As I pointed out the RELATIVE motions in the heliocentric model
>>>2. In the heliocentric model the Earth-moon system rotate about their
>>>3. In the neoTychoan model the COM of the universe is colocated at
>>What you have failed to address in any of your five posts are two
>>1) The sun and moon are real objects with mass and those masses
>>What balances the _changing_relative_positions_ of the sun and moon so
>>>Everything above has been asked and answered. Ready for the admission
>>You have not addressed the changing relative positions of the sun and
>>Until you can explain that your anti-science label remains firmly
>You are missing Tony's point, or at least one of them. This may haveAs far as I know, he has always claimed that.
>been his original claim, but his claims have become more refined.
>He is now claiming that the Earth sits at the COM of the Universe.
When the moon changes it's position (relative to the sun) you have a lot
>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
more applied force in a new direction (toward the new position of the
>2) If, OTOH, the Universe is infinite, then it does not have a COM. I
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.