Adrian Selby

I've been to the catholic apologetics page recently where this sungenis character argues for geocentrism. I noticed an apparent discrepancy in something he says:

My email to him recently, and his reply:

Hi, I've been browsing your page again, and the following two quotes, one in
an argument to an essay, and one from an email to me, appear to contradict
each other, could you explain?

"the earth doesn't move but the aether does, "

"final question then, and thank you for your prompt reply, is the earth
embedded in aether?

Adrian


Yes. That is why the Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, Miller and Ives results are so
important to this discussion."


Regards,

Adrian Selby


RS: I don't see what the problem is, Adrian. The earth being embedded in the aether does not mean that the aether can't move relative to the earth."

So, the earth doesn't move, but its embedded in the aether, which does, which would make sense if it were embedded in the aether, only everything else is meant to be embedded in the aether, and yet it all moves around the earth. Is 'embedded' the tricky word I'm making a mistake on, or is he talking crap.

Adrian

Corwin

Ok.... next question....

If the aether surrounds the earth... and the earth is embedded in it, but apparently not fixed into it... ask him why the earth doesn't burn up from the friction?

ManM

Why do you think the atmosphere is so hot?