[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:44:37 +1000

Paul said, 
<Actually no. I don't accept an aether because there is no objective evidence 
for its existence -- at least of which I am aware -- and it is of course 
pivotal to your case. Without it, your model crumbles.>

Paul if you completely understood the MS principles I was taught underlying 
Electromagnetic radiation, and even these are based upon uncertain principles, 
in that the wave function cannot be explained, without an aether...you would 
not make the claim you did above, even given your disclaimer "at least of which 
I am aware" which is a sort of contradiction .  You have faith in limited 
education, or selected education, because I am sure over the years I have given 
you these facts. 

On what basis do you deny the evidence of the anistropy of light as shown by 
the interferometer experiments? Especially the latest more modern tests. To 
rest your faith on the claimed time dilation and length contraction of the 
physical molecule, inserted to special relativity  for no other reason than 
with out it the alternative is to accept a stationary earth, is to me just as 
fantastic as star trek worm holes for interstellar travel, or if you like the 
existence of an all powerful omnipotent God. Just as fantastic!

Look,  I myself can invisage this time dilation space contraction. I read of 
the asserted atomic clocks in orbit allegedly proving it. I have read of 
reports about electron particles being propelled into the future in a 
cyclotron...  But none of these experiments have been re tried repeated or 
proven except in mathmatical concepts??????

And please recall your earlier call to me , that if miracles cannot be repeated 
at call, then it cannot be allowed as evidence..  Hmmm. Please apply the same 
standards to physics. Length contraction cannot be and has not been 
demonstrated..  The anistropy of light (emr) can. 

This is why I asked you to "give us a break" . It is why Allen and Jack see you 
as espousing a different faith or religion. It is virtually no different from 
Jack in his faith that the Catholic Church is of the Devil. Which you would 
agree with if there was any chance you believed in devils....Grinning. 

Philip. 

PS still grinning. If you are wondering why such a brilliant mind such as mine 
is, should be wasting my time talking to this insignificant list, it is because 
I do believe in God, and his imperative, that the most important way to 
salvation is charity. Regners involvement has greatly enhanced my 
opportunities, because I see an honest agnostic. I do not see an athiest and 
deny his claim to be so. The very opening he made was to assert his openness to 
evidence. A true scientist is an agnostic to all new things. As it should be. 

plm 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:42 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science


  Philip M
  Just a few comments in this <colour><> Only a few because I generally have 
respect for most of what you say.
  Paul D




  ----- Original Message ----
  From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Sent: Wednesday, 19 December, 2007 9:06:57 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science

   
  Paul said: 
  "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"

  That was easily done in GWW Paul. And it (the alternative) was more 
justifiable than the absurdity of time dilation and physical size contraction.. 
 give us a break. ..  But you refuse to believe or accept an aether and its 
affects, on no secure grounds other than you believe what you are told without 
proof. <Actually no. I don't accept an aether because there is no objective 
evidence for its existence -- at least of which I am aware -- and it is of 
course pivotal to your case. Without it, your model crumbles.>

  You got emotional over a few basic theories of physics, and ignored this.. \

  Robert said: 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 Einstein’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). <Yes -- perhaps so but this was not his only piece of evidence. 
If you have one piece of evidence that says 'yes' and seven that say 'no' the 
probable reality is the 'no' position. Additionally, this experiment has been 
conducted multiple times since 1924(?) with ever increasing resolution and with 
each execution, the probability of the existence of an aether diminishes.> 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) 
Einstein’s way of interpreting M/M not only avoids Occam’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 aren’t allowed to have a voice is that there are many 
ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan, Gould, Davies, and hundreds of others, who 
simply don’t want the public to know what the alternative interpretations are. 
I’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. They’ve told us 
what their agenda is, 

  Philip. 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Paul Deema 
    To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 4:13 AM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science


    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 wasn’t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what Hawking’s 
motivations are – 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 today’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 – 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 can’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? You’d be picking up your last 
paycheck. If you come to this discussion believing that one’s philosophy, his 
religion, his commitments to the establishment, his upbringing, etc., don’t 
effect how he views the evidence, then you’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 Einstein’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) Einstein’s way of interpreting M/M not only avoids Occam’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 aren’t allowed to have a voice is that there 
are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan, Gould, Davies, and hundreds of 
others, who simply don’t want the public to know what the alternative 
interpretations are. I’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. 
They’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 don’t have time, and I don’t have time. I’m a busy man like 
you. I’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 don’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 you’re going to do the same with the other four 
challenges I have, and thus it’s not worth my time. I’ve been through this many 
times before with naysayers, and I’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 you’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, I’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 
doesn’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)Maxwell’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 can’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. 


    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
    Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4/1188 - Release Date: 17/12/2007 
2:13 PM





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  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

Other related posts: