[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Regner,
In your first post you requested the following main items.....
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 regards to the Solar system we don't know a priori which is the case - is
the Earth orbitingand 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.
I replied with the following..i'll abbreviate here ...so as not to "confuse"
you....(note: these are verbatim quotes of my response to your request)
1......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......
3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show
concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth ......
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....
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, ...........
Further....You specifically requested......."- and don't go into much detail
- we can do that later." Your "reply" to the "5 reasons" you asked for , you
stated that you were unable to comprehend.?.....you referred them as "rambling"
These are about as simple of statements as one can make.
The additional commentary in my original posting assumed you had a certain
level of understanding, both scientifically, historically and or logicaly, on
this issue, that obviously you do not. This is the whole point of the
discussion. ( where "the ruber meets the road" Geocentriciy v A-centricity in
terms of relativity, Logic Observation and Experiance [LOE]etc...)
You could have argued or replied even to Point #1 with something like:
If it is true that we cannot assume earth to be in motion then we cannot
assume the earth to be at rest. ..but you did not because you were not capable
of understandingit and or the significance of that stament? If you are going to
engage in a discussion seriously and intelligently, you should at least
understand the significance of the basic premises underlying the issues and
discussion itself. Apparently you wish to ignore those...!?
If you had bothered to reply meaningfully, I could have replied somthing as
follows....
This is the point you miss, you cannot base any argument for earths supposed
motion on assumptions. The very definition of motion is based on that human
observation and experience (on this "absolute frame" or Just this "inertial
frame") , defines for us and we can demonstrate the definitions of real and
relative motion. We can also observe not just the mechanical action but certain
other measurable effects to our human bodies of real and retaliative motion in
our ordinary world. In our everyday ordinary world experience we can make the
distinction between real and relative motion, our definition of motion real or
otherwise is based on that experience (which is an experience that we have, not
merely something we imagine)....We do not experience any effects in the
earth??s supposed motions about the universe that we experience in our ordinary
world ,that our very definitions of real and relative motions are based on.
Thus, we can only make claim to the logical conclusion
that since we do not experience motion thus
1. We can make no claims of the motion of the earth
2. Regardless of what the reality ultimately is, the only logical conclusion
that we can make about some supposed earth motion, is that there is no
evidential motion.we are only using what we have, ( lack of evidence for
motion)
not what we do not have.(we do not have some inherent knowledge/proof/ model
that tells us that everything must be "interpreted" so as to preclude real
absolute motion measured against the earth as the ARF because we already know
that there is no absolute motion all motion is relative to any given "inertial
frame").
However, it is not an assumption to start with what you have not with what
you do not have. That is only logical, and has nothing to do with which one is
reality and thus nothing to do with assumptions about reality. This is true
regardless of whether or not you accept only "inertial frames" or an "absolute
frame". cause we only have ordinary experience to proceeded from.......
But alas, you did not. In- fact you did reply to any of the points. You only
restated your posion, by claiming my points did not help me..?? Again WOW,
that determination is the point of this discusion is is not? (To logicaly
determine the geocentric postion to be sound or not).. You stated "I can't
figure out" thoes 5 points...???? Further, since you could not comprehend those
5 points, from that "lack of comprehension" you then proceeded to "deduce" that
"You have a closed mind"....wow! You could not even "begin" to grasp those 5
points but you were able to deduce my whole mind set from those same 5
points...WOW again!!!..Why that is indeed an incredible feat of Intellectual
prowess.......!?
Then, you were offered a comprehensive compilation of evidence against
A-centricity and for Geocentricity. You stated "that would be a wasted
effort"....? I don?t see anything in your remarks demonstrating any real
interest in this discussion at all.. Please prove me wrong. If you don't agree
( logically or scientifically) with one of those 5 reasons, ( that you asked
for) then make that known and please explain your objection(s) to them.
Otherwise, (to quote you:) "you are rambling immensely and writing a lot of
unsubstantiated non-sense abuot me and about modern science. If you carry on in
this way, I'll deem you unable to participate in a civilized, scientific
discussion, and I will ignore your posts. "
Again quoting you, "IF we could finally get this discussion going"
Allen Daves
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
Other related posts:
