[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:51:58 +1000
Regner: And many an atheist have sacrificed (I apologize if this constitutes
a copyright infringement) their lifes for good causes - without
needing a God to do it.
Meself: Pure presumption, as no one knows if it is voluntary, as in a soldier,
or whether he was just an agnostic, rather than an athiest.. There are few
real athiests.
Regner this was not preaching, or meant to be so. I was attempting to
demonstrate that humility is behind the geocentric position, when someone
contended that it was pride to want the earth to be central to the universe.
It is a bit difficult to discuss the issue of geocentrism without morality
coming into the question, when the prime antagonism to it is not science, but
due to the deepseated antagonism by the founding fathers of science to
religion. So far I have had no reason to include either you or Paul amongst the
founding fathers or the high priests of science, or the high priests of all of
the worlds religions, who also, by the way are aligned with you against us.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:26 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> This time Allen you gave me a clue I missed, but why you took a hundred
> words to say what 10 could do is beyond me.
>
I'll echo that sentiment.
> You should get rid of your feelings..
>
That seems a bit drastic - but keeping them in check in a scientific
discussion, would be in place.
> Now you brought to light humility. I missed the import. There is no such
> thing as humility without God..
>
Sorry I missed the copyright notice about the use of humility©.
> Humility in its ultimate conclusion involves
> sacrifice, even unto death..
>
Yes - the Jihadi suicide bombers do it for their God...
> No true athiests would go that far, but
> agnostics can and do hope.
>
And many an atheist have sacrificed (I apologize if this constitutes
a copyright infringement) their lifes for good causes - without
needing a God to do it.
Appropriating these concepts seems rather self-righteous and not modest.
It is also the kind of statements that spur animosity.
Accepting other peoples views (you don't have to agree with them to do
that) seems more modest to me - but then, I am a blasphemous atheist,
I guess...
I fully accept that you believe in an almighty God, and I have absolutely
no intention of changing that. But I would very much appreciate if you
would stop preaching about what I, as a human being, am capable of or not.
I don't tell you what you are and what you can or cannot - I assume you,
or at least someone who knows you well, would be a better judge of that.
- Regner
> No humble person could sacrifice the life of an
> unborn child rather than sacrifice his or her comfort zone.
>
> The geocentrist is not earth centred with pride in man, but God centred in
> humble submission to His will. It is an opposite foundation upon which we
> claim heliocentrism is built, namely rebellion and pride.
> Note. I said foundation. Paul may give humble submission in ignorance to
that
> foundation, but not his life.
>
> Philip.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Allen Daves
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 7:30 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
>
>
> "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?Tt speculating. The quote tells us precisely what
Hawkingâ?Ts
> 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?Ts 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?Tt
> 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?Td be picking up your last paycheck. If you come to this
> discussion believing that oneâ?Ts philosophy, his religion, his commitments
> to the establishment, his upbringing, etc., donâ?Tt effect how he views the
> evidence, then youâ?Tre 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?Ts 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?Ts way of interpreting M/M not only avoids
> Occamâ?Ts 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?Tt allowed to
> have a voice is that there are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan, Gould,
> Davies, and hundreds of others, who simply donâ?Tt want the public to know
> what the alternative interpretations are. Iâ?Tm 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?Tve 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?Tt have time, and I donâ?Tt have time. Iâ?Tm a busy man
> like you. Iâ?Tve 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?Tt
> 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?Tre going to do the
> same with the other four challenges I have, and thus itâ?Ts not worth my
> time. Iâ?Tve been through this many times before with naysayers, and Iâ?Tve
> 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?Tre 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?Tm 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?Tt 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?Ts 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?Tt 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date:
19/12/2007
> 7:37 PM
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.5/1190 - Release Date: 19/12/2007
7:37 PM
Other related posts:
