[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Aether for Mike
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:07:26 +0100
>> Greetings Mike,
Hi :)
>> Just a quick snippet of my "theory" of aether as you called it.
>> Either you or Alan one thought my very brief, brief mention of an
>> aether compressing matter was ludicrous nonsense...such is not the
>> case...look at your pal Einstein's picture of gravity wells for
>> instance...he was fully aware as was Wheeler that it was nothing
>> but a different representation of or topography of what an "in
>> pouring" of aether towards matter would look like. It was drawn 2
>> dimensionally with the understanding of a 3-D representation. The
>> VERY same mathematics and pictagrams used to show "gravity wells"
>> in the solar system is 100% analygous to aether compressing matter
>> from every side, angel, or what not, its an influx towards the
>> "center" if you will of a clump of matter. The SAME "tensions"
>> brought on by the "perceived" pulling of space between these wells
>> is the same as would be observed with 3-D push (towards the center
>> of matter) and pull (in the "space" between the planets) as is
>> depicted.
Sounds interesting. Do you have a link to good description of the
theory so I can have a look at it. Above we just have vague ideas, I'm
not criticising that, but we do need the actuall theory before we can
talk about it.
>> In some ways I can use the very foundational blocks that are used
>> to batter people with here to re-build so to speak a wall in
>> defense. You can't argue what you're arguing with...that's not
>> logical...as Spock would say.
Let's stick to the point shall we:)
>> As far as me attempting to throw my intellectual weight around as
>> you say, I would first have to have a desire to impress, I do not,
>> at least no more than you and Alan.
I have no desire to impress anybody here. I am simply trying to help
some of you think more rationally. A thankless task I've been drawn
into as a result of coming here to see what the geocentrists take was on
their supposed scientific evidence to support their belief.
>> Your "weight" is found in throwing up one view of orthodoxy of
>> science, not the only view as is the case within most peer groups.
You have a point - I usually take it for granted that people don't doubt
physics. But I have never thrown the authority of the establishment at
anyone. I have tried to rationally present the ARGUMENTS of
conventional science that I find compelling.
>> I agree that some things said here by others are not properly
>> presented using proper scientific jargon, many, if not most, do not
>> claim to be physicists
Jargon is shorthand and won't persuade anyone who doesn't understand the
jargon or doesn't believe the science from which the jargon comes. We
should avoid jargon except where we all understand and agree. This is
why you must define what you mean by "aether" otherwise we're just
playing word tennis.
>> they do claim to be attempting to defend their religious beliefs
>> based on a science that was abandoned for more than just scientific
>> reasons...religious backlash.
This is rubbish, most of the great scientists were religious.
>> Personally I've always found it better when dealing with an
>> opposing view to HELP them actually foster that view until both
>> parties feel that it has been exhausted, either pro...they were
>> right....or con....they finally see that their line of reasoning
>> was incorrect. Such has not necessarily been the case here. Maybe
>> that was the intent, maybe not. I will afford both you and Alan
>> respect here as people at least discussing the problem...at least
>> as much as you can afford to give me not knowing me, save as a
>> newcomer of pecular entrances. I bid you all a good night.
I agree with you entirely. You will note that I have not commented on
any points of religion except for what my stance is. I don't wish to
shake anyone's faith (and know I won't succeed anyway). If you give us
something to work with, like a concise theory of the aether, or even a
working hypothesis, I will go with it and see where it takes us. I have
asked you for this many times. If you can't see that your opening
paragraph in this post was not a hypothesis, let alon a theory, then you
don't understand what science is. I'm sure that's not true so please
give us something to work with and let's stop all this pointless bantar
and get to the point.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
