11
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 604:
Line 604: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Geocentric theory (view source)
Revision as of 19:07, December 22, 2016
, 19:07, December 22, 2016reply
By the way, you can use four tilde characters to sign your comments. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 15:36, 21 December 2016 (EST)
By the way, you can use four tilde characters to sign your comments. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 15:36, 21 December 2016 (EST)
"observers on earth are '''always''' in the same frame of reference. It has nothing to do with the moon"
This statement is kind of scaring me. Let me ask you this, do passengers in the Ford Earth always have the same frame of reference to the Chevy moon?
Because at first and last quarter moon phases the observers on Earth have the same frame of reference as the sun would during the full moon phase. Those frames of reference reveal the constant SPEED of the moon (see simplified explanation again)
There is no problem with the velocities, there is no problem with "acceleration", the only problem is your desperate attempt to throw everything but the kitchen sink at a simple proof to try and prove a flawed model is accurate. This proof is about reconciling relative motion (which you never address and consistently ignore or deny with your latest frame of reference statement) with the moon phases. You continually ask about my physics education, understanding, and I'm sure you want to know about any letters after my name. That's because, like your equations, you weight veracity on its source. This is also wrong. If Einstein's theories are wrong, they are wrong. If Einstein writes an equation, that doesn't make it correct, or proof of something. If you, on the other hand, are correct, you're correct. Truth and accuracy are not dependent upon their source, but their merit. From here on out my reply is (see simplified explanation) because you're wasting my time with particle acceleration nonsense and every ridiculous premise as if a mode of acceleration negated relative motion theory.
==References==
==References==