[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 08:58:55 +1000
Paul says:
You may not agree with their conclusions, but they fit observation and reason,
and they explain. Because of this, they have utility.
[ Utility does not prove reality. NASA utilises, thats utility, the geocentric
position for many calculations. As regards observation , all admit such is
illusory.. Thats why they love Einsteins relativity mirrors.. but we have the
egg or chicken primacy here. What is observed is made to fit the reasons
assumed. shouldn't it be the reasoning should be made to fit the observation..
surely you do not claim that anyone anywhere can observe, or has observed the
earth moving, or twisting ? Not even Einstein admits or claims that. ]
You must also be aware that Neville is a died-in-the-wool geocentrist. He is
aware of what I'm saying, but prefers to believe a distinctly minority
interpretation of an ancient book written by -- scientifically -- ignorant
authors in preference to -- scientifically -- less ignorant, recent and
contemporary investigators.
[ scientifically ignorant authors? You know the authors then? Even if I left
out the truth that they were writing the words as ordered from God, and
accepted that these were the words of ordinary men, how can you or I know the
level of their science? How can you claim that they were more ignorant than
todays scientists? If I write a book on cooking fish, can you then discern my
scientific qualifications?
Of course not.. but in writing their book on faith and morals, they in passing
mention truthful observations concerning the cosmos, according to their
science. Without even knowing their scientific reasoning behind their
acceptance of these facts, and simply because you arrogantly presume that
todays men are superior to them in scientific knowledge, and because todays
men's view contradicts those of those unknown men of the past, you presume them
to be ignorant.
A purely private unproven and unprovable opinion. Just as are the tenets of
heliocentrism un proven and unprovable. At least today. The aforementioned
authors may have had a thousand times the scientific knowledge that abounds
today.
Based on their literary skills in promoting and teaching faith and morals
alone, I could imagine your surprised efforts in dialogue should it ever be
possible that you come face to face with any one of these human authors.
Even more would your efforts be amazing to behold if you were confronted by the
real inspiration behind those writings Himself, who far from being ignorant,
knows ALL.. ]
Philip.
Other related posts:
