[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:19:15 -0000
Dear Paul,
Your examples are quite reasonable because they could be verified if possible.
But unless you hear me speak Swahili, it is till only an assumption, in fact an
assumption, as your other assumptions, without any foundation. The same goes
for astronomy. The fact that you may feel passionately that your assumption is
reasonable, it is still an assumption or a theory. It is interesting that the
people who want to see proof of God are happy with theories upon theories and
assumptions upon assumptions in just about everything else. 'There's now't so
queer as folk'.
If you took the trouble to read GWW you will find all these MS theories and
assumptions listed and critiqued, not just by the book's authors but other MS
scientists including the 'Doppler' effect w.r.t. light.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Jack L
Ah! Yes! Assumptions. To assume, to take a position without supporting
evidence. I assume that you do not have a wooden leg. I assume that you have a
wife. I assume that you do not speak Swahili. All reasonable assumptions but
not assumptions upon which I would risk my life nor my wealth nor yet even
$1000 at two to one. Assumptions of this nature are reasonably safe but if you
keep making them you will be caught short.
That you do not understand -- or you choose not to understand -- the basis
upon which the Sun's composition and energy creating processes are determined
does not make that determination an assumption. I'm sure that in your lifetime,
you have hit your thumb with a hammer. Most of us boys have -- it's what we do!
So then, if I hit you on your thumb with half a kilogram of gallium (it's a
safe bet that you've not previously been hit on the thumb with half a kilogram
of gallium) would you assume that it would hurt? Or would you be more likely to
state that it would indeed hurt -- no assumption involved? This is a crude
example, but the processes involved in coming to a rational conclusion are not
fundamentally different in the two cases.
I'm really surprised that you included Doppler effect in your list of
'assumptions'.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 22 November, 2007 12:56:32 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear Paul,
> Just about everything to do with astronomy are assumptions and cannot be
> verified.
>
No! - Regner
Yes! They cannot be directly verified, only verified within a theory. -
Neville
> Black holes, stellar distances, dark matter, parallel universes,
> Doppler effect, even what the sun is made of are all assumptions piled
upon
> assumptions.
>
No! - Regner
Yes! - Neville
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
