[geocentrism] Re: Geostationary Satellites
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:33:06 +1000
It is not necessary to Prove a point in order for the point to exist. The point
in this instance is that a body can be at rest, whether or not this can be
demonstrated. Paul.
True. but for any example you may cite;
whether it is moving or not moving, must decide whether it is this reason or
that reason for the observable force. The "why", but not the "how"
When we spin a stone in a sling, we feel the centrifugal force, we accept it as
a natural thing. but that gives us no right to claim that the spinning of a
weight explains the reason it ecxperiences a force. To do so avoids the real
mystery.
Why does the spinning flywheel resist axial rotation? Because it is spinning.
Nonsense. Thats not an answer.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geostationary Satellites
Philip M
"A body at rest does NOT." Here we go again Paul.. Your statement is not
thought out.. A body in a state of rest relative to what? Nobody knows or can
prove any point to be in a "state of rest" or movement relative to the universe.
It is not necessary to Prove a point in order for the point to exist. The
point in this instance is that a body can be at rest, whether or not this can
be demonstrated.
You know, one of the greatest difficulties between the religious and the
scientific camps, is this concept of absolutes vs relatives. The religious camp
constantly demands absolute clarity, perfect understanding and complete
knowledge from the scientific camp, heaping derision, ridicule and scorn upon
it when this is not forthcoming. They are not satisfied with great probability
or trivial uncertainty. Not only that, but if offered, rigorous examples will
commonly be rejected on the grounds that they are not understandable. The
scientific community is damned either way.
On the other hand, when asked for something concrete to substantiate their
examples of contrary science, they back away. The aether is a case in point.
I've sought elsewhere, and here asked a number of times for some clearcut
explanation of the aether, but nebulous single sentence statements is the best
I've been offered. What I had in mind was something along the lines of the
explanations offered at
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Projects/Collection1.html#_applet where the
three body problem is demonstrated and at
http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Pendulum.pdf where the pendulum is subjected to
mathematical analysis. This site has many other examples of the kind of data
I'd like to see supporting this contrary science but never seem to find. Are
there no similar sites extolling geocentric/geostatic science?
But to return to the point -- a body at rest -- I was responding to just such
a statement from the reformation.org site, as illustrated in the drawing taken
from that site and attached to my response of Sun Mar 4 07:28:17 2007 to Bernie
B's post of this thread. So you see I didn't make the statement, I was
responding to this statement. Note! A statement does not need to be made in
words -- any media which communicates an idea suffices.
Now let me ask you a question. Why (in the figure portraying the Earth, the
geo-stat satellite, gravity ... ) is the geostatic satellite shown on a circle
(orbit?) if it is a body at rest?
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.7/711 - Release Date: 5/03/2007
9:41 AM
Other related posts: