Sunset at Old Man's Place (in more ways than one)

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_245%20108.jpg

[Old Man]

In article , "Old Man" writes:

Sunset at Old Man's Place (in more ways than one)

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_245%20108.jpg

Beautiful picture. I'll ask no questions.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
| chances are he is doing just the same"

To Old Man

The Sun does not ****ing set,the Earth rotates into its own orbital
shadow and that makes the the difference between Copernican
heliocentricity and Newtonian quasi-geocentricity.

Before you go you might even taste the great Copernican experience that
you spent a lifetime burying under empirical trash,take in the planet's
heliocentric orbit and then its orbit along with the rest of the solar
system around the galactic axis with the other visible local stars.

You might even concur with the excitement of the first heliocentrists
before Newtonian quasi-geocentricity crept back in -

http://vms.cc.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/chain.htm

The chances are that you will pass into the great love that moves the'
Sun and the other stars' (Dante) after attempting ,with your other
colleagues,to kill appreciation that while we are small we participate
in the great motions of the Earth for the purpose of relativistic
homocentricity.

You still have a chance to appreciate the independent motion of the
Earth on its axis and the cycle of dawn,noon,dusk,dawn that it
generates rather than sunrise/sunset but given that no even the
Copernican insight of the dual axial and orbital motions of the Earth
are safe from relativistic homocentrists,your legacy is distinctly grey
-

http://www.answers.com/topic/copernican-principle

On a sunny day (Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:31:59 -0500) it happened "Old Man"
wrote in :


Sunset at Old Man's Place (in more ways than one)

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_245%20108.jpg

[Old Man]
There is an UFO on the left, just above the trees.

wrote:
To Old Man

The Sun does not ****ing set,the Earth rotates into its own orbital
shadow and that makes the the difference between Copernican
heliocentricity and Newtonian quasi-geocentricity.

Since you are evidently old enough to operate a keyboard, I would
expect you to be fully aware- that "sunset" is just a conventional
abbreviation for "the time at which Earth eclipses the Sun". Earth also
doesn't have an "orbital" shadow. It just has a shadow.

So please enlighten: What is even remotely geocentric about
Newtonian theory?

-Mark Martin

Old Man wrote:
Sunset at Old Man's Place (in more ways than one)

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_245%20108.jpg

[Old Man]



Now let's not have any of that "in more ways than one"
talk... Think "I've got twenty good years left"!

Sam Wormley wrote:

Now let's not have any of that "in more ways than one"
talk... Think "I've got twenty good years left"!

...and not all in a row either!

-Mark Martin

It certainly has a different character than the 'orbs' in front of the
trees on the right.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

To Martin

Old Man I know but who the **** are you.

I would really love to stay and explain how Newton turned Flamsteed's
erroneous axial rotational /stellar circumpolar equivalency into a
geocentric heliocentric/orbital equivalency but from your posting
history you are a mere theorist disciples and it is'nt worth my time.To
break this down into a simple statement even you can understand -
Newton changed the relationship between the way axial and orbital
motion is gauged against each other so that he could make his readers
believe that they can do astronomical modelling of planetary motion
directly from observational cataloguing

Here,eat Newton's garbage for what he says (using Kepler) is a
bright shining lie -

PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.

This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all
astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of
the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or
the earth about the sun."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

There is your Newtonian quasi-geocentricity right there,the beginning
of framehopping that ended with the ultimate homocentric concept of the
early 20th century.

Enlighten !, as a Christian who has seen the horror of
Copernican/Keplerian insights directed towards the opposite ends to
which they originally served -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle , I assure you that
in our short existence before the magnificense of the universe,Old Man
is looking out on something that he has spent a lifetime denying and
dodging.He will be thanked for dying without remorse in order to keep
the conceptual corpse dancing when he should be fighting tooth and nail
to stop geocentricity (sunrise) from lapsing into subhuman
homocentricity.


..

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:%PUte.75359$_o.6428@attbi_s71...
Old Man wrote:
Sunset at Old Man's Place (in more ways than one)

http://www.iw.net/~jakoepke/hp945_245%20108.jpg

[Old Man]



Now let's not have any of that "in more ways than one"
talk... Think "I've got twenty good years left"!

A setting sun always rises,

The Optimist