(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,

When we previously discussed it, I assumed you were familiar
with the simpler aspects of astronomy. You made occassional
comments that didn't seem to fit with your other views, but
it was hard to find where the problem lay. I now understand
you have an almost Ptolemaic view of the solar system which
explains many of your errors.

We talked of Kepler's laws and you seemed to accept them yet
and of course the first law says the path of the Earth as it
moves round the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun at on focus.

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Now you are saying the Earth does not move round the Sun and
the odd thing is I think you mean both even though they are
obviously contradictory. Until you resolve this fundamental
conflict in your views and decide whether to abandon Kepler
or accept Copernicus, it isn't possible to discuss anything
with you in a sensible manner.

I suggest you do a little research and see if you can draw
what you think is the orbital path of the Earth in relation
to the Sun because as it stands I cannot guess what you think
it looks like. It feels like trying to discuss calculus with
someone who has read all the books and can quote all the rules
but never learned how to add.

George