[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:30:35 -0800 (PST)
"It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to
think it is just them against orthodoxy."
Paul, you talk as is HC was a proven fact or that you had any facts external
of just your faith in others interpretations of them that HC were
true!?....LOL...... You can?t prove HC theory neither can Regner! If he could
he would be more famous the Einstein or Hawking himself. ..In fact for every HC
piece of evidence, that same "evidence" shows GC at face value. And as of yet
you nor anyone else has given us a reason to interpret it other then "what you
see is what you get", except that it could and it is more
"modest".....LOL...That is objective criteria!!!?? LOL...your & Regner?s
"modesty" is a feeling not a scientific observation, certainly not objective
data!..Give me break!.. Regner may not like it but at the end of the day
"modesty" is the criteria that the most knowledgeable proponents of HC admit to
for the only "proof" (correct interpretation of data) of HC.!?...and my theory
(GC) it is NOT A THEORY just takes the facts as is...but you call a odd ball by
interpreting facts with nothing more then just your imaginations and
"modesty"!?.....LOL...You need to take a hard look at your self. You dont make
any sense and neither do any of your arguments. HC does not have the stamp of
observation anywhere on it without reinterpreting observations with
imaginations and "modesty"? .....There is less actual evidence for HC then for
GC. There is no Evidence for HC whatsoever without first evoking a circular
fallacies about how you think the kinematics of the universe work. I find
Regner?s comments about "humbleness" totaly humorous.
"* Calling humbleness apologetic is pretty weird.> > * On the other hand, it
is probably a good idea for them to discredit> > humbleness, since insisting
that we humans are the whole reason for> > this Universe, is decidedly not
humble."
How does he define modesty and what objective criterial does he and Hawking
use to make that opinion? Regner is right about one thing though, modesty is
not apologetic but immodesty is, HC is not based on modesty it is based on
getting rid of God...How does a non centered universe more modest!?
Regner gos on to say "But that is philosophy - let's get back to science,
shall we?"
I say great! Regner you and Paul and everyone else in the HC camp stop
supporting the use of your philosophical humbleness as an objective
justification for why and how your interpretations of the facts are more
objective then just taking them all at face value. but you cant do that if you
did you would have no observation or experience to support your case. On the
other hand if you do not stop doing that then it is you not GC folk who are
using Philosophy and religion! This is particularly true when the only
consistency in all of the is observations and experiments at face value all
show the earth at the center motionless .....! This cannot be said of all the
excuse for why the earth is not the center!?. ..except ......"it is more
modest"....LOL
In fact it is not modest at all! The whole purpose was and is not science or
based on objective data in observation or experience at all, but rather to
explain everything naturally absent of God.....Well if there is a God, I don?t
see how he would see it as Modest at all...LOL..:-D. Since we have not been
able to prove God does not exist to claim modesty as the champion of your cause
is not only foolish, but quite arrogant. ( the exact opposite of
Humbleness)..LOL..who you trying to kidd..yourself?...I dont buy it, and
neither does even logic support your assertion!?
That is why the politics is not just important but everyt;hing when it comes
to data that can have multiple interpritations. To say that is it not is a
fairytale dreamland. To understand how a conclusion was reached that could have
multiple possibilities/ interpretations you must understand what the criteria
for the decision was made in the first place particularly when you took a
conclusion that demands a model that is other then what you see or can prove!?.
All is not just facts, if it were then you would have to accept a GC universe,
it is the only conclusion you can draw from any and all available facts period.
I don?t have to show any other facts then the ones HC purports to be HC proof,
because they don?t even remotely show HC without assuming it is true first.
....................
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Robert S
I truly despair when I read <From sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007>
this thread, and similar. (See below).
Firstly, the paranoia. It seems to be the first shot fired by those who can't
get their views accepted by honest workers in the fields in question. But
worse, there is the flood of words which seem designed to attempt to smother
the discoveries of the past 500(?) years. These discoveries are open to
disproof by any who can demonstrate falsity. No one does, which leads to the
possibility that no one can -- not because of ineptitude but because the
disproof does not exist.
If, instead of the flood of words, we were to be treated to a series of
simple, testable geocentric hypotheses equivalent to F = ma and those which
flow from it, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Sun with all
its mass circles the tiny Earth then you'd have a prayer. It would also help
your case if you could explain how the enormous body of interlocking and
mutually supporting knowledge of the physical functioning of the Solar System
can be repeatedly demonstrated and yet be false.
However, I think the thing which bothers me most is resorting to Maxwell and
quasars and alleged false proofs of relativity. This is taking a steam hammer
to crack an egg. If the Sun circles the Earth you should be able to show it
within the sphere encompassing the Solar System. My guess is that if the
universe ended at the Oort Cloud, eff would still equal em-ae and the Earth
would still circle the Sun.
I have two beautiful examples of how science triumphs. The first concerns
Gregor J Mendel who first worked out the principles of inheritance (not money
but genes). He was an Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think - in any
event he worked in isolation) who when he died, had his papers burned by his
abbot because the abbot feared that this "knowledge", if widely available,
would be a threat to the church. Today his work is recognised and respected
because it has utility, ie -- it works.
The other is the disastrous effect of doctrinal domination of science, in
this case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet theory of Genetics" (as though
ideology could influence truth, ie -- what is). The man the Soviets chose to
back was named Lysenko. After 50 years(?) of failure to demonstrate the truth
of his claims, with the Soviet Union falling further and further behind in this
matter and the matters upon which this false view of genetics bore, they had to
reverse their position. His theory did not have utility, it didn't work.
The point I'm making is that science is about discovery -- it is not about
invention. If you seek to disseminate the theory that in a gravity field the
pan with 900g in it will sink and the pan with 1000 g in it will rise, you will
forever be shown to be wrong.
Paul D
PS Almost missed this one. From your post below -
'...then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocentrism
is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have a voice
in academia today.'
Would you also give an equal voice to a flat Earth on four elephant's backs
on a turtle's back in a really big puddle? The concave Earth? A flat circular
Earth in the middle of a Tychonian system with the South Pole a really high
wall of ice at the edge? And all the other alternatives? I'm sure the
proponents of these alternative systems have explanations which they regard as
at least as valid as geocentrism and that if you get representation then so
should they.
It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to
think it is just them against orthodoxy.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
From sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007 Re:Integrity in science.
RT: So speculating on peoples motives is examining evidence? I don't really
care about peoples motives, social status, gender, hair-colour, whether
somebody has found a quote that can fit into their world-view, etc., etc...
RS: I wasnâ??t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what Hawkingâ??s
motivations are â?? to keep the earth out of the center of the universe,
despite the fact that the cosmological evidence shows him that it best fits in
the center, and that he has to concoct an alternate cosmology just so that he
can keep the earth out of the center. And there are more quotes from Hawking
that say the same thing. If you would read the book, you would see dozens of
such motivations by todayâ??s scientists to keep the earth out of the center,
in spite of the evidence before them. The reason is simple. They know precisely
what it means to have the earth in the center â?? it means that their whole
career in science will be over and they are going to admit that science took a
wrong turn 500 years ago. But today, a scientist canâ??t even express his doubt
in evolution without losing his job. Can you imagine what academia would do if
you, Regner Tem., said the earth was standing still in
space? Youâ??d be picking up your last paycheck. If you come to this
discussion believing that oneâ??s philosophy, his religion, his commitments to
the establishment, his upbringing, etc., donâ??t effect how he views the
evidence, then youâ??re not living in reality.
This is precisely why I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment as my first
piece of evidence, since we are told there are at least two ways to interpret
the results. If one is trying to keep the earth moving, one will interpret M/M
Einsteinâ??s way (and Einstein said so, by his own admission, and you can read
his words in GWW. His motivation was to keep the earth moving, even though the
salient features of the experiment were suggesting that it was not be moving).
If you want the earth to remain still, you will interpret the results another
way. As a scientist, you know as well as I do that INTERPRETATION of the
experimental results is the crux of the issue. And since interpretation is
often a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity, then interpretations of
experiments are always subject to scrutiny. What we are trying to say is (a)
Einsteinâ??s way of interpreting M/M not only avoids Occamâ??s razor, it is,
for all intents and purposes, absurd; and (b) since a fixed
earth is a valid, reasonable and scientifically supportable interpretation of
M/M, then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocentrism is
correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have a voice in
academia today. But the reason we arenâ??t allowed to have a voice is that
there are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan, Gould, Davies, and hundreds of
others, who simply donâ??t want the public to know what the alternative
interpretations are. Iâ??m not making this up, Regner. I have documented their
motivations by their own printed words, and that is precisely why I spent four
years gathering quotes of their "motivations" in GWW. There is no argument.
Theyâ??ve told us what their agenda is, and I suspect you have the same agenda.
RT: I care about the physical evidence. I have seen a few excerpts of your
books, but, as I have said before, I don't have time to read the thousands of
pages. Since you wrote the book, you should be able to distill the key findings
into a couple of challenges for me, and we can take the discussion from there
and get into all the details. That is what I would like to do, because I think
it would be the most efficient.
Do you have objections to that?
RS: Ok, you donâ??t have time, and I donâ??t have time. Iâ??m a busy man like
you. Iâ??ve got nine kids and three book deadlines to meet, on top of coaching
two basketball teams. The reason I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment to
explain first is that your answer will tell us exactly how you approach this
whole issue. I consider it a test for you, Regner. I donâ??t know anything
about you other than you came on board this discussion group. Hence, not to
accuse you now, but if I see you fudging with the evidence of the first
challenge I give you, I can safely assume youâ??re going to do the same with
the other four challenges I have, and thus itâ??s not worth my time. Iâ??ve
been through this many times before with naysayers, and Iâ??ve been teaching
for 35 years, enough to know when someone is just being obstinate and when
someone really has solid objections. I want to see which one you are.
And practically speaking, if youâ??re involved in an intense discussion with
Allen, and as you say below, "I am sorry that I don't have time to take on more
than one discussion at a time, but that is how it is," then my suggestion is
not to ask for more than you can handle by insisting that I give you four
challenges instead of one. Obviously, as is now the case with Allen, when you
give your answer to the first challenge, Iâ??m going to come back with
questions and objections for you, and we are going to go round and round on it
until it is exhausted, which may take months. So why would we want to clog up
the works with four other challenges that are going to require the same
intensity? It doesnâ??t make sense to me.
For the record, the other challenges I was thinking of giving you but held
them back in order to see what you would do with the first challenge, involve
such things as: (1) center of mass; (2) parallax and retrograde motion; (3)
centrifugal and Coriolis forces; (4)Arago, Hoek, Airy telescope results;
(5)Maxwellâ??s equations; (6)quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc; (7) the Sagnac
experiment; (8)false proofs of relativity; (9) difficulties with a rotating and
translating earth, and many other such issues.
But again, they are all superfluous if we canâ??t get to first base with the
first challenge. This is the most reasonable approach, and I hope you will
agree.
Robert Sungenis
---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
