[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:32:39 +1000
agnostic noun [C]
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a
God exists:
which does not mean athiest, notice I been spelling it wrong.
atheist noun [C]
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.
confirmed in faith... eh..
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:02 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
Philip M
I'll use this <colour> this time.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 21 December, 2007 2:44:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
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..<I readily
acknowledge my abysmal ignorance here. However, theorising an aether to make
your equations balance is not demonstrating its existence. Such theorising is
quite valid so long as you acknowledge that it is theorising. To proceed to
build a whole cosmology on something you have not detected however, is a bit
rash. You might draw a parallel with Relativity, but Relativity was always
understood to be theoretical until experimental results began to confirm it.
The aether was pursued in a similar manner but rather than finding
confirmation, the experiments increasingly suggested non existence.>.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. <Is it really years? Seems more like centuries! |[:-) I have
acknowledged my respect for your thinking.>
On what basis do you deny the evidence of the anistropy of light as shown by
the interferometer experiments? <Here I can only plead ignorance thus, being
blessed with a modicum of wisdom, I refrain from comment. I've looked up
anisotropy but the information just rolled off like water from the back of the
proverbial canard.> 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! <No -- my recollection is of
radioactive particles generated in the upper atmosphere from the action of
cosmic rays with a known half life insufficient to permit detection at sea
level even at v = c unless time is slowed. (Citation needed!)>
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...<Hmmm!> But none of these experiments have been re tried repeated
or proven except in mathmatical concepts?????? <Again no. The GPS system
includes allowance for time variation due to velocity. There have been many(?)
experiments involving flying clocks which vindicate this view.>
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. <Truly our utterances are
wont to indict us! Yet still I persist in this view. Regarding length variation
with velocity though -- I can't recall any experimental verification.>
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. <Yes -- well I've explained
that error several times.> 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. < I once was a devotee of
Catholicism. I didn't swap it for another (religious) ism.>
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.
<I just looked up agnostic in my trusty COD. I always thought that one aspect
of agnosticism was the active pursuance of knowledge of God but it said simply
-- one who holds that nothing such is known or likely to be known on this
subject. Likewise, openness to persuasion was not mentioned -- the sense in
which you have used it but I take your point.>
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.6/1192 - Release Date: 21/12/2007
1:17 PM
Other related posts:
