--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bhagwan_goose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > My point exactly. As you may have seen in my original post back > to > > > > peter (to which you responded) if procession does not imply the > sun > > > > rising from different directions, for example from the west > 13,000 > > > > yrsr agos (half a precessional cycle), then why and how does it > > > > make SV invalid in the long run -- as Peter has argued. > > > > > > I don't think your mental model is quite right, > > > > Not the first time its been off. :) > > > > > but I'm not sure exactly how it's off, so I don't > > > know how to help you correct it. > > > > Do you therefore feel Peter's model is correct? If so, can you > > explain why? > > Wasn't following that closely, sorry. Let me try explain the positions as I understand them. Peter, please correct me if I get your position wrong.
We both agree that precession advances 1 degree every 72 years, and makes a full cycle every 26,000 years. Peter claims that this precession changes the orientation of buildings over long of time -- that a building facing due east will be facing due west in 13,000 years due to precession (assuming it is still there (this is "thought" experiment -- useful for clarifying concepts.) And this thus makes SV quite releative to time, and makes invalid in the long run. You claim that the sun will still rise in the east in 13000 years. I suggest that if you are correct, a building correctly facing the sun per SV now will be correctly facing the sun in 13000 years. If you are not correct, and peter is, the sun will be rising from the west in 13000, the building will be facing the wrong way. So who is right? Judy: the sun will still rise in the east in 13000 years. Peter: the sun will be rising from the west in 13000, the building will be facing the wrong way per SV. The postions are mutually exclusive. This is not a "Paradox of Brahman". Both statements cannot be true -- even if some psuedo-enlightened want to suggest that anyone who can't hold both as blissfully true will never be enlightened. :) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
