[geocentrism] Re: Aether effects

It is true there are wide varied discussions on this, which is after all the 
point of all our discussions here??to pursue a more logical path based on 
actual observation and Experience then the one presented by MS ..Yes, there is 
work to do because these things have for the most part in the last 100 years 
been ignored by MS. It is the very fact that it is not pursued very much that 
makes it not defined very well ?. That is where we come in. We are attempting 
to build upon what we can actually reproduce  in a lab not just ignore all 
those  ?magical anomalous phenomena?  that don?t fit our models or ideas ... 
?Anomalous? J..now that is how MS would treat it...We on the other hand what to 
take all of the reproducible and observable "anomalies? and actually take them 
into consideration??which is the whole point of GS v AC ?ac develops/ promotes 
and explains its theories in spite of observations and reproducibly verifiable 
?anomalies? and call it objective?? ( contradiction in
 terms) ..where we in GS  insist that accurate models must account for, not 
contradict, take into consideration any observations and those MS anathemas?.. 
?reproducible anomalies?  (observable and experimental)???...We further insist 
that any valid explanation must be based on logic with what O7E  not circular 
fallacies of imagination about things that cannot even be modeled or imagined 
in some ordinary terms otherwise any theory such as a endless isotropic 
universe that looks the same no matter where you are inside it is well??..about 
a meaningful as the physics that angles work off of?..and especially, if you 
don?t believe in God and angles then this analogy should really drive the point 
home??  If we are going to be ?objective? we must ID assumptions and work with 
the O&E not in spite of it?. Not just ?explain what we can? and then redefine 
what ?objective? is for all the rest and insist that no mater what it 
demonstrates that is must conform to what we have already
 determined  how certain other things are?.ie never mind the fact that the 
earth behaves stationary and looks like the center we have determined that it 
is not the center therefore we MUST create a Mechanical construct that shows it 
does not have to be and thus is not??  Then base all our assumptions to build 
that construct on the fact that we have already determined its outcome for no 
other reason then we say it is not at the center??? 
  
In short, the very reason we are here is to shake up and shake out.....
   
  
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          
  Greetings all
  Now that the Aether Effects debate seems to have subsided, may I make an 
observation? From my reading of the various posts, I now believe I understand 
why my many entreaties for information on this subject have gone unanswered -- 
there are no two among you who agree on any aspect of this alleged phenomenon.
  Paul D
  


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Other related posts: