Regner,
I realised that my question in the email below, to you, Regner, was
contained within my short responce to Paul, so you might not have
noticed it. So I thought I might resend so that you would know I had
asked you something and could repond, even if to say no. I am curious
to know if you see anything substantially wrong with the reported
facts in the linked article.
JA...
*/j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>/* wrote:
Paul,
I wonder.... what the utillity is of things like the "big bang" or
"abiogenesis" or "evolution" or even "star formation"???
I wonder, Regner, if you have the time to read this short article
and give us your thoughts on the "facts" reported within.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/stars-of-heaven-confirm
JA...
*/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 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
<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/default_all/mail/spankey/*http://au.yahoo.com/worldsbestmail/spankey/>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>
