[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:00:23 +0200
I deduce two points from your E-mail
1) Your are rambling and I can't figure out which words make up
a sentence. Please adhere to my rule #1.
2) You have a closed mind, in that you don't recognize the two
possible explanations of seeing something move; Either the
observer moves, or the observed moves. In science we cannot
afford such a closed mind - Nature has repeatedly outperformed
human imagination.
Neither of the two points does your case any good.
Neither of your 5 reasons have been included yet, as I can't
decipher them. Please write a clear summary if you want to proceed.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the
> 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct.
> And please adhere
> to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that later.
>
> 1. When you state the question "which one is moving"? ....There can
> therefore be no assumption of motion first, thus the only logical position to
> start from is first to prove motion NOT first prove there is no
> motion......you must start with what you have, not what you do not have...
> there is no demonstratable motion of the earth external of an assumption of
> motion first...thus the burden of proof for any motion is on those who claim
> motion for the earth, not on those who claim there is no proof of motion.
> since as you just did that since "In regards to the Solar system we don't
> know a priori which is the case"....or we have no ordinary or intrinsic
> experience/ knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did not make the
> car/ universe)
>
> 2. All attempts to prove motion have come up short & or non
> existent....Data cannot be interpreted as demonstrating some imaginary
> theoretical construct 3rd alternative(STR) first without assuming the
> conclusion that the earth must really be in motion, is true first..which is
> what you were trying to prove one way of the other to begin with...(invoking
> a circular fallacy).......To assume some third option is true ( since the
> earth behaves stationary at the center thus all the motions must just be
> relative/illusionary) as the reason why the second option (earth in motion)
> is realy not false, is in essence to assume the conclusion as the premises
> for the argument that "proves" it. ........The only two alternatives
> experiments/ observations have ever had any possibility of logical proof up
> to any given point in time/history in which they were made, up to the present
> time was real/absolute motion or no real/absolute motion(to the
> earth)......There was no real/absolute motion
> demonstrated/ fell short ascribed (to the earth),............. Thus, we
> cannot assume some third alternative,(STR) (that all motion including/
> especialy EMR is only and all relative and therefore no real/absolute
> motion), without assuming that is true first..why/...because, that is what
> they are/were trying to prove one way or the other...and still do even now
> days.....and that option (relativity) is
> A. Not only unnecessary external of its own conclusion, (we really are in
> motion but just cannot demonstrated it becuase all is relitive so no way to
> measure, thus we must be in motion..!?)
> B. It is not provable ..(all motion just relative motion with no preferred
> or absolute reference frame)..even if it were true you could not claim proof
> for motion of the earth, it can only be assumed within that theoretical
> construct.
> C. It's own constructs have been shown to be falsified,..light is not
> isotropic....a distinction of real v absolute motion can be made in the
> everyday world thus there is no logical bases for making claim of proof for
> otherwise in the rest of the world that we can only experience indirectly
> using the experience of the everyday world as the only logical frame of ref
> from which to begin to argue from. (Starting with what you have not with what
> you do not have)
>
> 3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show
> concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth as so far as it can be
> observed and measured in terms of accuracy ( by definition of the term
> center)...again starting with what you have not with what you do not
> have....no third options can be claimed, that it is all just an illusion
> without assuming that is true first then constructing some theoretical frame
> work to explain how that could possibly be if we only assume it is true/
> "most reasonable" first.
>
> 4. The relative motion of the stars nightly produce an observable pattern (
> nightly star trails)....However, annually around the north secondary Northern
> annual axis of rotation there is no observable pattern that can or has ever
> been demonstrated to coincided with that supposed motion....The annual
> patterns are based on an effect that is larger by many orders of magnitude,
> thus the argument cannot be made that the effect is to small to observe for
> if it were the case, then the smaller effect would not be observable
> either....
>
> 5. 1, 2 ,3 &4 being true thus there is only left to us logically
> evidentiary "proof" ( as so far as anything can be proven) that the earth is
>
> A.the center of the universe and
> B.Has no demonstratable motion, ..............
> This can be and is the only logically conclusion that can be made (A&B)
> with the available observation and experience, (without invoking circular
> fallacies using theories (STR) that are only nessisary & or justifiable
> within the very conclusions they propose to "prove")... However, the converse
> cannot be logically concluded without assuming the very conclusion that any
> argument would attempt to prove, as the proof for itself.........ie the is no
> justification for (STR) external of its own conclusion (every thing including
> EMR is in only in relitive motion there is no absolute ref frame for
> motion)..but that was the whole point of the experiments, to see if that is
> true..to assume it is true frist then interpret the results/data or construct
> theoretical constructs for such is to invoke a circular fallacy.. ...In
> short, The data taken without invoking the very conclusion(s) that the
> alternative arguments attempts to prove ( everything all only in relative
> motion with no
> such absolute reference frame) show no such motion as described in a HC/AC
> or Helio/Acentric universe...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to start a discussion about whether your theory of a
> geocentric Universe with a fixed non-rotating Earth holds up against
> evidence. Please hold back your E-mails about all the evidence you see,
> and let's attack the problem in a systematic and scientific manner.
> First a few rules:
> 1) Please keep your replies short, precise and concise.
> I don't have oceans of time, and neither, I suspect, do you.
> 2) References to scripture does not count as scientific evidence
> and cannot be used as support of a scientific theory.
> 3) The most basic observations in regards to the movements in the
> Solar system is the movements of the Sun, stars, the Moon, the
> planets, etc. That they move across the sky cannot in itself be
> taken as evidence for or against the geocentric theory.
> In a previous E-mail I asked Bernhard Brauer, Marshall Hall and
> Neville Jones whether: "When driving a car, is the car going
> forward, or the Earth going backwards?" They all answered the
> obvious and correct - that the car is going forward. We (humans)
> designed and built the cars so we know that. In regards to the Solar
> system we don't know a priori which is the case - is the Earth orbiting
> and revolving or is it stationary. So let's find out.
> I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the
> 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct.
>
> And please adhere
> to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that later.
>
> 1. When you state "which one is moving"? thus , there can be no assumption
> of motion then the only logical postion to start from is first to prove
> motion NOT first prove there is no motion......you must start with what you
> have, not what you do not have... you have no demonstratable motion external
> of an asssumption of motion first...thus the burden of proff for any motion
> is on those who calim motion for the earth, not on thoes who claim there is
> no proof of motion. since as you just did that since "In regards to the Solar
> system we don't know a priori which is the case"....or we have no ordinary
> or intrinsic experiance/ knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did
> not make the car/ universe)
>
> 2. All attmptes to prove motion have come up short....the data cannot be
> interpreted as offering some 3rd alternative first without assuming that
> alternitive is true first...becaue the two alternitives were real/absolute
> motion or no real/absolute motion(to the earth)......there was no
> real/absolute motion deomonstrated/ fell short ascribed (to the earth), thus
> we cannot assume some third alternative, (that all motion is only and all
> relitive and therefore no real/absolute motion), without assuming that is
> true first..why/...because, that is what they are/were trying to prove even
> now days.....to assume some third option is true ( since the earth behaves
> sationary at the center thus all the motions must just be relitive) as the
> reason why the second option (earth in motion) is realy not false, is in
> essence to assume the conclusion as the premisise for the arguemet that makes
> it.
>
> 3. 1 and 2 are true thus there is only left to us logicaly evidentury
> "proof" ( as so far as anything can be proven) that the earth is 1.the center
> of the universe and 2.has no motion, ..............This is and can be
> logicaly conluded with observation and experiance. However, the converse
> cannot be logicaly concluded without assuming the very consclusion that any
> argument would attempt to prove as the proof for it self.........ie the is no
> justification for releitivity external of its own concluisons (every thing is
> in motion there is no absolute ref frame for motion)..but that was the whole
> point of the experiments, to see if that is true..to assume it is true frist
> then interpret data or construct theoretical constructs for such is to invoke
> a circular falicy.. ...the data taken without invoking the very conclusion(s)
> that the alternative arugment attempts to prove ( everyting all only in
> relitive motion with no such absolute reference frame) show no such motion
> as
> described in a HC/AC or Acentric universe...
>
> 4. all observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double gallexies show
> concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth as so far as it can be
> measured in terms of accuracy...again starting with what you have not with
> what you do not have....no third options can be claimed, that it is all just
> an illusion without assuming that is true first then constructing some
> theoretical frame work to explain how that could posibly be if we only assume
> it is true/ "most reasonable" first.
>
> 5. The reltive motion of the stars nightly produce an observable
> pattern....however, annualy arround the north secondary annual axis of
> rotaion the is no observable pattern....The annual patterns are based on an
> effect that is larger by many orders of magnitude, thus the argument cannot
> be made that the effect is to small to observe for if it were then the
> smaller effect would not be observable either....
>
>
>
> I'll collate the replies in a few days into a list of the 5 reasons that
> are cited most often in your replies.
>
> Regards,
>
> Regner Trampedach
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
