Dark Matter, a result of the heliocentric doctrine - Page 2

rmstock · 20-06-2007, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitenight639

If the earth is infact stationary where does this leave night and day and the seasons, as if the earth is stationary and the sun orbits us then this would make night and day possible, but what about the seasons, also are there images of other solar systems like this, or indeed not like this as it would seem logical that the body with the largest mass would be the stationary one, much like if an adult and child were to hold hands and spin around each other, the heavier one always ends up moving the least (like an achor).

If the earth is stationary, then it must be the Sun, the moon and the
stars who rotate around the earth. The authors introduce a new concept
called : the heliocentric parallax hoax. Searching for parallax in the
online dictionary's we find :

Quote:

"The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"
Parallax Par"al*lax, n. Gr. ? alternation, the mutual
inclination of two lines forming an angle, fr. ? to change a
little, go aside, deviate; para` beside, beyond + ? to
change: cf. F. parallaxe. Cf. Parallel.
1. The apparent displacement, or difference of position, of
an object, as seen from two different stations, or points
of view.
1913 Webster

2. (Astron.) The apparent difference in position of a body
(as the sun, or a star) as seen from some point on the
earth's surface, and as seen from some other conventional
point, as the earth's center or the sun.
1913 Webster

3. (Astron.) The annual parallax. See annual parallax,
below.
PJC

Annual parallax, the greatest value of the heliocentric
parallax, or the greatest annual apparent change of place
of a body as seen from the earth and sun; it is equivalent
to the parallax of an astronomical object which would be
observed by taking observations of the object at two
different points one astronomical unit (the distance of
the Earth from the sun) apart, if the line joining the two
observing points is perpendicular to the direction to the
observed object; as, the annual parallax of a fixed star.
The distance of an astronomical object from the Earth is
inversely proportional to the annual parallax. A star
which has an annual parallax of one second of an arc is
considered to be one parsec (3.26 light years) distant
from the earth; a star with an annual parallax of
one-hundredth second of an arc is 326 light years distant.
See parsec in the vocabulary, and stellar parallax,
below.

Binocular parallax, the apparent difference in position of
an object as seen separately by one eye, and then by the
other, the head remaining unmoved.

Diurnal parallax or Geocentric parallax, the parallax of
a body with reference to the earth's center. This is the
kind of parallax that is generally understood when the
term is used without qualification.

Heliocentric parallax, the parallax of a body with
reference to the sun, or the angle subtended at the body
by lines drawn from it to the earth and sun; as, the
heliocentric parallax of a planet.

Horizontal parallax, the geocentric parallax of a heavenly
body when in the horizon, or the angle subtended at the
body by the earth's radius.

Optical parallax, the apparent displacement in position
undergone by an object when viewed by either eye singly.
--Brande & C.

Parallax of the cross wires (of an optical instrument),
their apparent displacement when the eye changes its
position, caused by their not being exactly in the focus
of the object glass.

Stellar parallax, the annual parallax of a fixed star.
1913 Webster

When we mention parallax in a astronomical context we have the
heliocentric parallax with the sun as reference point and the
geocentric parallax with the center of earth as reference point.

It turns out that all distances and movements in our stellar system can
only be defined with a parallax definition (heliocentric or geocentric)
as prepositioned starting point. Apparently the astronomers never
abandoned the geocentric parallax inside the dictionaries.

from page 282,283 :

Quote:

Let's determine the distance to the star Alpha Centauri from the Earth
and from the sun and see how great the difference can be even for this
closest of stars. Note:

"Looking at the star Alpha Centauri from an Earth circling the Sun,
parallax measurements and trigonometry would assure us that the two
are 1.3 parsecs, or more than 4.2 light years apart. But looking at
an Earth circled by the Sun the distance turns out to be less than
one twentyfifth of that amount. Now these values cannot both be
true ...." {23} (Emph. added)

Hmmm. That's real interesting .... What it adds up to is that the stars
could be a whole lot closer then we are indoctrinated to believe! A
WHOLE LOT CLOSER is right! Note again:

"... In the Copernican estimation we observe the stars where they
were from four to many thousands of light years ago. According the
geocentric convention we see the starry dome in the position it had
almost two months ago. Or less if light's travel slows it down!"{24}

That's a biggg difference!! All the way from thousands of light years
at 186,282 miles per second to two months at the same speed! So how
thick is the shell of stars if we calculate from a non-moving Earth, I
wonder ...? Van der Kamp tells us :

"... a simple trigonometric calculation gives us the radius of the
Stellatum, the shell in which the stars have been placed. That
radius turns out to be about 58.1 light days, i.e. one twentieth of
a parsec." {25}

Howfarszat in miles? About one trillion ....

So bottom line it turns out that our galaxy with a geocentric parallax
definition as starting point is a lot smaller. Now to the seasons.
According wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

Quote:

The seasons result from the Earth's axis being tilted to its
orbital plane; it deviates by an angle of approximately 23.44
degrees. Thus, at any given time during summer or winter, one part
of the planet is more directly exposed to the rays of the Sun

Inside the geocentric model, the sun orbits the earth in 24 hours,
where the Sun's orbit obviously makes a precession of 23.44 degrees
with respect to the earth's North-south pole axis during the year.

For the rest of this chapter see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.VI.pdf

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

rmstock · 02-07-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmstock

Sadly enough during the weekend, niburu.nl was forced offline by its hosting providers, due to exceeding bandwith limits. The new link to view the above niburu.nl thread is at http://floor.neostrada.nl/~niburun/f...ic.php?t=10483

niburu got its forum back online and the new url is at

http://www.niburu.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10483

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

whitenight639 · 02-07-2007, 01:18 AM

WOW cheerz rmstock, your an intellegent bloke and your post cleared it up for me, i'm going to check out the links in the morn, i wonder if it will explain the freak weather were having.

rmstock · 02-07-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitenight639

WOW cheerz rmstock, your an intellegent bloke and your post cleared it up for me, i'm going to check out the links in the morn, i wonder if it will explain the freak weather were having.

Here's what i sent to BBC newsnight :

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:26:23 +0200 (CEST)
From: Robert M. Stockmann <stock@stokkie.net>
To: BBC NewsNight
Subject: Weather Warfare in June 2007?

Hi,

Anyone who has seen the latest weather reports has seen that a strange
rainshower terror is crawling across certain _fixed_ areas of Europe,
America and Asia these days.

What is striking is that its not rain showers who showup and pass by
quickly, but that the rain terror is somehow trapped inside certain
fixed regions for elongated times. And that all in June 2007, when we
all should be inside our beach outfits getting some brown tan ....

A successful precursor for the start of a real war is to make the
weather behave in rather weird ways. The idea of Weather Warfare has
been known since the Cold War and it turns out that NATO and the USSR
had even signed a Weather-Warfare treaty which states not to attack each
other using Weather Warfare [1][2]. Inside [2] the following quote
stands out :

"Weather Warfare: A Corporate Bonanza

HAARP has been operational since the early 1990s. Its system of
antennas at Gakona, Alaska, was initially based on a technology
patented by Advanced Power Technologies Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary
of Atlantic Ritchfield Corporation (ARCO). The first phase of the
HAARP Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) was completed by APTI.
The IRI system of antennas was first installed in 1992 by a
subsidiary of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) using the APTI
patent. The antennas beam into the outer-atmosphere using a set of
wireless high frequency transmitters.

In 1994, ARCO sold its APTI subsidiary, including the patents and
the second phase construction contract to E-Systems, a secretive
high tech military outfit with links to the CIA
(http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html [5]).

E-Systems specializes in the production of electronic warfare
equipment, navigation and reconnaissance machinery, including
"highly sophisticated spying devices":

"[E-Systems] is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the
world, doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations,
and others. US$1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these
organizations, with $800 million for black projects-projects so
secret that even the United States Congress isn't told how the
money is being spent.( http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/vandalism.html )

"The company has outfitted such military projects as the Doomsday
Plan (the system that allows the President to manage a nuclear war)
and Operation Desert Storm." (Princeton Review,
http://www.princetonreview.com/cte/p...ternshipID=998 )

With the purchase of APTI, E-Systems acquired the strategic weather
warfare technology and patent rights, including Bernard J.
Eastlund's US Patent No: 4,686,605 entitled "Method and Apparatus
for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or
Magnetosphere".

It is worth mentioning that the Eastlund /APTI patents were based
on the research of Yugoslav scientist Nicola Tesla (many of whose
ideas were stolen by US corporations). (See Scott Gilbert,
Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of
Mass Destruction,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/GIL401A.html )

Eastlund described this deadly technology as capable of:

"causingtotal disruption of communications over a very large
portion of the Earthmissile or aircraft destruction, deflection or
confusion weather modification"
( http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/HAARP.htm [4]),

Not surprisingly, the patent had previously been sealed under a
government secrecy order.

Barely a year following the E-Systems purchase of APTI's weather
warfare technology, E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, the
fourth largest US military contractor. Through this money-spinning
acquisition, Raytheon became the largest "defense electronics" firm
in the World.

Meanwhile, ARCO which had sold APTI to E-Systems, had itself been
acquired by the BP-AMOCO oil consortium, thereby integrating the
largest oil company in the World (BP).

Raytheon through its E-Systems subsidiary now owns the patents used
to develop the HAARP weather warfare facility at Gakona Alaska.
Raytheon is also involved in other areas of weather research for
military use, including the activities of its subsidiary in
Antarctica, Raytheon Polar Services."

So something is IMHO going on for sure, where i have seen in my direct
neighborhood metal posts or domes which look in shape much alike
Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower located in Shoreham, Long Island, New York [3].
Not as big, but are rather more tiny models and don't look exactly the same
but do have the same Tesla function no doubt.

On Monday BBC's Newsnight reported about Gordon Brown taking residence
inside Downing street 10. Interesting enough, it was concluded that
communications from the press to Gordon Brown were effectively impossible.
Moreover Gordon Brown will be confronted with a very nasty lawsuit where
BAE systems is charged for bribery and misconduct, where even Dick
Cheney might be brought down [6][7][8] ...

Did we not hear Dick roar, I'm above the Law! ?

Best Regards,

Robert
PS.
[1] "Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy:
The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction
by Scott Gilbert, www.globalresearch.ca, January 2004
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GIL401A.html

[2] "Beneath the Debate on Climate Change: Weather Warfare and the
Manipulation of Climate for Military Use"
by Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, October 31, 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=3653

[3] "Nikola Tesla"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

[4] "Angels Don't Play This HAARP"
by Jeane Manning and Dr. Nick Begich
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/12/HAARP.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200604221...h/12/HAARP.htm

[5] "HAARP"
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200605241...com/haarp.html

[6] "Will BAE Scandal of Century Bring Down Cheney?"
Sunday, June 24, 2007
http://spiiderweb.blogspot.com/2007/...ring-down.html

[7] "Corruption In The Camp of LaRouche-Haters Cheney and Blair"
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/bre...ey_blair .asp

[8] "Update: The BAE Systems Affair and The Anglo-Dutch Imperial Slime Mold"
by John Hoefle,
http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/bre.../bae_slime.asp
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

ashyr · 02-07-2007, 01:56 AM

your blimmen mad!

from looking at this makes me wonder, have they gone back to the catalogs of the halls of great plots and ploys that checking all there confiscated material. released it again and using it as the latest WOW to make us stop also?

whitenight639 · 02-07-2007, 02:12 AM

If you really sent that to the BBC then be carefull mate,

even chemmies in the air on this last one!

rmstock · 02-07-2007, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashyr

your blimmen mad!

from looking at this makes me wonder, have they gone back to the catalogs of the halls of great plots and ploys that checking all there confiscated material. released it again and using it as the latest WOW to make us stop also?

hey! How about some blimmen tittle's for his Dickness?

The weather which tortured holland and the uk during the last weeks, made
me think of weather warfare. Then i remembered that this LaRouche guy keeps
promoting his Anglo-Dutch Liberal banking system theory. He also calls it
a 'Slime Mold'. Also remember that the oil sjeiks have the Anglo-Dutch bankers
by the balls, as we now see all kind of Islamic banking offerings show up
in London and Amsterdam.

Enough ongoing events to get a couple of very powerful people raving mad.
Blimmen mad if ya like

tejas · 02-07-2007, 11:13 AM

I don't understand -
Firstly
Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the centre of the solar system or that it is motionless? Ive read the bible several times and the only reference I have is that of a vague description of the suns movement in the sky somewhere in isiah
Secondly
Are you saying that every planetary system revolves around the earth??
One of the major challenges to the geocentric model of the solarsystem -
was that you can see the "phases" of venus - if the earth is the center then
venus would not have any "phases"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system

"In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to show that Venus went through phases, just like the Moon. This observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system.

Ptolemy placed Venus inside the sphere of the Sun (between the Sun and Mercury), but this was arbitrary; he could just as easily swapped Venus and Mercury and put them on the other side of the Sun, or made any other arrangement of Venus and Mercury, as long as they were always near a line running from the Earth through the Sun. In this case, if the Sun is the source of all the light, under the Ptolemaic system:

If Venus is between Earth and the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be crescent or all dark.
If Venus is beyond the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be gibbous or full.

But Galileo saw Venus at first small and full, and later large and crescent."

(Note that the ptolemaic system IS the geocentric system)

???!

rmstock · 02-07-2007, 06:50 PM

Ptolemaic System vs. Modern Geocentrism
----------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejas

I don't understand -
Firstly
Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the centre of the solar system or that it is motionless? Ive read the bible several times and the only reference I have is that of a vague description of the suns movement in the sky somewhere in isiah

".. Sun, stand thou still .... And the sun stood still ... "
Joshua 10:12,13

" ... the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
I Chronicles 16:30

" ... The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved."
Psalm 93.1

"HE ... hangeth the Earth upon nothing."
Job 26:7

for more references into the Bible and a discussion see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.I.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejas

Secondly
Are you saying that every planetary system revolves around the earth??
One of the major challenges to the geocentric model of the solarsystem -
was that you can see the "phases" of venus - if the earth is the center then
venus would not have any "phases"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system

"In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to show that Venus went through phases, just like the Moon. This observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system.

Ptolemy placed Venus inside the sphere of the Sun (between the Sun and Mercury), but this was arbitrary; he could just as easily swapped Venus and Mercury and put them on the other side of the Sun, or made any other arrangement of Venus and Mercury, as long as they were always near a line running from the Earth through the Sun. In this case, if the Sun is the source of all the light, under the Ptolemaic system:

If Venus is between Earth and the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be crescent or all dark.
If Venus is beyond the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be gibbous or full.

But Galileo saw Venus at first small and full, and later large and crescent."

(Note that the ptolemaic system IS the geocentric system)

???!

Well the Ptolemaic system is NOT todays geocentric system. The
development and perfection of the Ptolemaic system basicly was halted
with the arrival of Copernicus :

" ... The Ptolematic system dominated astronomical thinking until the 1500's" [2]
[2] Isaac Asimov, The Double Planet, (Abelard, etc., 1960), p. 88.

Although "The Earth is not moving" doesn't discuss Galilei's
observation of Venus's evolvement through moon alike phases, its not
impossible to explain this lighting behavior of Venus by sunlight
inside a Geocentric model. According

"APOD: 2006 January 10 - The Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060110.html

it takes several months For Venus to complete a full Phase cycle.
A full Phase cycle of the Moon takes roughly 1 month. According

"APOD: 2004 May 21 - Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040521.html

half a phase cycle takes roughly 2 months, hence a full phase cycle
takes 4 months. It might be interesting to see if the full phase cycle
time of Venus is a constant, like that of the Moon, or if the full
phase cycle time (fpct) of Venus, fpct[Venus] is changing as years
evolve.

If the earth is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] should
be a constant value, as our observation point (Earth) is not moving.

If the sun is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] is
most probable not a constant value of 4 month, as our observation point
Earth _is_ moving according the heliocentric system.

Please note that fpct[Moon] can only be a constant because the moon is
rotating around our observation point Earth.

Next from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system :

Quote:

In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the disproven theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it.

The wikipage however doesn't mention a specific scientific paper where
a refutation is presented. As the Ptolemaic description was abandoned
during the 1500's, it is not updated according the latest astronomical
observations. There are however two wikipages which describe a updated
geocentric model :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_orbit

Please note that the above two wikipages mention scientific proofs, like
'Quantization of redshifts' etc. Compare this with the heliocentric
wikipage :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric_model

Quote:

Modern use of geocentric and heliocentric

In modern calculations, the origin and orientation of a coordinate system often have to be selected. For practical reasons, systems with their origin in the mass, solar mass or in the center of mass of solar system are frequently selected. The adjectives may be used in this context. However, such selection of coordinates has no philosophical or physical implications.

Hence, even the followers of heliocentrism, i.e. the Astronomical and
Physics establishment, inserted some gross reservations with the
ABSOLUTE implementation of the heliocentric model inside Astronomic
research.

Cheers,

Robert
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net

tejas · 02-07-2007, 07:26 PM

Quote:

".. Sun, stand thou still .... And the sun stood still ... "
Joshua 10:12,13

" ... the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved."
I Chronicles 16:30

" ... The world also is stablished that it cannot be moved."
Psalm 93.1

"HE ... hangeth the Earth upon nothing."
Job 26:7

for more references into the Bible and a discussion see :
http://crashrecovery.org/fixedearth/chap.I.pdf

Most modern biblical scholars would agree, and as would I that these are taken out of context to the original text if used to show that biblically the earth was the centre of the solarsystem, universe or whatever.
For example your Joshua quote does not necessarily render to the interpretation that the earth is the centre of the universe, only to the fact that "god" lengthened the day and indeed it would appear from Joshuas perspective that the sun would "Stand Still" it doesn't have anything to do describing the nature of the solarsystem or whatever.

I do not wish to go into a lengthy discussion about your above quoted verses, regardless to say that the bible is an archaic fallback from mans dark ignorant past, its like still believing that the earth is flat because some mystic text from greece says so. [Although I still hold firm that no where in the bible does it out-right say that the earth is the centre]

Quote:

Well the Ptolemaic system is NOT todays geocentric system. The
development and perfection of the Ptolemaic system basicly was halted
with the arrival of Copernicus :

" ... The Ptolematic system dominated astronomical thinking until the 1500's" [2]
[2] Isaac Asimov, The Double Planet, (Abelard, etc., 1960), p. 88.

Although "The Earth is not moving" doesn't discuss Galilei's
observation of Venus's evolvement through moon alike phases, its not
impossible to explain this lighting behavior of Venus by sunlight
inside a Geocentric model. According

"APOD: 2006 January 10 - The Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060110.html

it takes several months For Venus to complete a full Phase cycle.
A full Phase cycle of the Moon takes roughly 1 month. According

"APOD: 2004 May 21 - Phases of Venus"
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040521.html

half a phase cycle takes roughly 2 months, hence a full phase cycle
takes 4 months. It might be interesting to see if the full phase cycle
time of Venus is a constant, like that of the Moon, or if the full
phase cycle time (fpct) of Venus, fpct[Venus] is changing as years
evolve.

If the earth is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] should
be a constant value, as our observation point (Earth) is not moving.

If the sun is the center of our planetary system, fpct[Venus] is
most probable not a constant value of 4 month, as our observation point
Earth _is_ moving according the heliocentric system.

Please note that fpct[Moon] can only be a constant because the moon is
rotating around our observation point Earth.

Next from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system :

In a geocentric model, there is NO explanation as to why Venus would have a phase system to begin with!

Have a look at some pictures of OTHER solar systems that exist in our galaxy, where we can clearly see that the 'sun' of these systems is in the center

02-07-2007, 01:18 AM	#13
whitenight639 Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 561	WOW cheerz rmstock, your an intellegent bloke and your post cleared it up for me, i'm going to check out the links in the morn, i wonder if it will explain the freak weather were having. __________________ I had that same dream again, the one where I wake up and I'm alive

02-07-2007, 01:56 AM	#15
ashyr Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nelson Posts: 220	your blimmen mad! from looking at this makes me wonder, have they gone back to the catalogs of the halls of great plots and ploys that checking all there confiscated material. released it again and using it as the latest WOW to make us stop also? __________________ "SO LET'S SING VOLUMES FOR THE SOULS THAT AREN'T FOR SALE INDEED LATELY THERES BEEN HELL HOUNDS ON MY TRAIL" Holsis Yolswa My resonant name at the point of death. Smart Enough?

02-07-2007, 02:12 AM	#16
whitenight639 Moderator Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 561	If you really sent that to the BBC then be carefull mate, even chemmies in the air on this last one! __________________ I had that same dream again, the one where I wake up and I'm alive

02-07-2007, 11:13 AM	#18
tejas Premier Subscribers Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 37	I don't understand - Firstly Where in the bible does it say that the earth is the centre of the solar system or that it is motionless? Ive read the bible several times and the only reference I have is that of a vague description of the suns movement in the sky somewhere in isiah Secondly Are you saying that every planetary system revolves around the earth?? One of the major challenges to the geocentric model of the solarsystem - was that you can see the "phases" of venus - if the earth is the center then venus would not have any "phases" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system "In December 1610, Galileo Galilei used his telescope to show that Venus went through phases, just like the Moon. This observation was incompatible with the Ptolemaic system. Ptolemy placed Venus inside the sphere of the Sun (between the Sun and Mercury), but this was arbitrary; he could just as easily swapped Venus and Mercury and put them on the other side of the Sun, or made any other arrangement of Venus and Mercury, as long as they were always near a line running from the Earth through the Sun. In this case, if the Sun is the source of all the light, under the Ptolemaic system: If Venus is between Earth and the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be crescent or all dark. If Venus is beyond the Sun, the phase of Venus must always be gibbous or full. But Galileo saw Venus at first small and full, and later large and crescent." (Note that the ptolemaic system IS the geocentric system) ???! Last edited by tejas : 02-07-2007 at 11:19 AM.