[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:29:26 +1000

Am I disappointed in Paul? sometimes I think so. You are not consistent. Well 
yes you are consistent in being inconsistent. On the one hand you believe in 
theories as proven by a science you admit of not being in any way cognisant of. 
Then you say in another post that science is not in the business of proving its 
case. And again in another, if I posit another science that negates your 
favourite scientistic view, you back away with the excuse of it being outside 
your field. 

Thats fair, but unfair in that you do not follow up with "I will look into that 
and try to learn this new area of information".  You do it (being "unfair") 
with gravity, you do it with electromagnetism. 

Yet you come back with experiments talking about the inclusion of time dilation 
in GPS satellites to make them accurate because of inaccuracies cause by their 
rotational velocity..  Something niether you nor I could verify .. Yet I can 
say with absolute certainty that the accuracy of GPS locations would be totally 
unaffected by the alleged time alteration due to to this affect..   Real time 
dilation if it existed, and even if I accepted the figures by your people, 
would make such a small phase change to RF signals as to be insignificant at 
the wavelengths used, as to be undetectable in your average radio equipment 
direction finders. Please Paul make yourself aware of some basics re radio 
direction finding..  and the the time dilation changes detectable only with an 
atomic timepiece in satellites moving from 18,00 to100, 000 mph. 

Shouldn't I from your attitude  deduce that your acceptance of science is based 
upon selective assessments, accepting what appeals and rejecting what does not 
, without any recourse to a personal evaluation by yourself of all theories 
posited by science in its entirety. from either side, thus to arrive at some 
sort of balanced perspective. 

I call this narrow minded, actually closed minded, and not open to any change.. 
 such an approach is exactly the same as the religious bias that Jack 
demonstrates to Catholicism. Uh OH  No comments please Jack except under 
another subject line. 

I am going to have another go to explain to you the aether. It will come under 
the subject line 'catch 22'.  But you will have to be reasonable and be 
prepared to look at those science areas to which you claim no knowledge.  

Philip. 



Other related posts: