[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 09:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Paul,
Demonstrate your position with observations….. but do not and you cannot assume
the very thing you are attempting to demonstrate.....it is that simple!...I
completely understand that you don’t like the "phrases" that i keep using… You
still don’t see the difference between imagination and observation do
you?!………... the tides are not thought experiments they are observations…so is
the Alias effect your "free fall" is not a observation it is a assumption about
an inertial state that you are trying to demonstrate…the concept of ."free
fall" as you use it is the very thing you are trying to prove you cannot just
assume it it there……Now what is the observation that shows us that falling to
the earth is the same as inertial neutrality…..hint there is none...... the
fact that any and every acceleration that can be produced demonstrates a
detectable effect even when objects begin to accelerate at gravity…….is not a
thought
experiment.. that is a fact! ..It is reproducible and consistent every
time!...... Your arguments about free fall can only be made by assuming the
very things you are trying to demonstrate in the first place v (the ordinary
and plain observation of inertial rest) so as to convince folk that
accelerations in "free fall" cant be detected but the way you use "free fall"
is it self the assumption of the very thing you are trying to prove….if there
is no orbit then no free fall can exist! ..You assume the very thing you are
trying to demonstrate!.. Secondly you don't seem to understand the difference
between observed event and the explanation for why that event occurred .....The
problem here is with your examples and how you use them..... Please explain to
us exactly which "two 1 kg lead spheres will be in front, behind, or on a par
with each other when passing perihelion" and how you know that as well as
exactly how that proves why they behave that
way.....? again you cannot make your argument without assuming your idea of
why gravity works the way that it does and why or how it is related to
inertia...in fact you must assume paul that gravity and inertia are related
period... Paul that is what you are trying to demonstrate....you cannot first
assume all those things in spite of observations to the contrary, to interpret
the observations that supposedly validate that very thing you are attempting to
demonstrate....it is called a circular fallacy.........Accelerations cannot be
detectable and not detectable at the same time wrt the same exact
bodies.....All the imaginations and explanations will never ever make that
contradiction disappear.....if you want to show us how it is just an illusion
then you must first demonstrate the observation that shows it to be an illusion
not first assume it is an illusion by which we interpret what we see....how can
you be so self contradictory and not see
it......Your discussions are nor based in any attempt to figure things out
your only trying to justify why what you believe is not realy "faith" and win a
argument ...dam the observations...if i am wrong then you should have no
problem demonstrating something without asking us to assume the very things you
are trying to show us.......Paul what you put forward quite simply neurotic,
bipolar and schizoidfrantic....by definition…
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:02:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Allen D
I have highlighted a number of phrases in your post which I've heard over and
over and over and over and over and over and over ...
Your posts have a depressing quality which conjure up visions of a "random
buzz-phrase generator". It's like I'm not really talking to anybody -- it's
just a computer program.
You assert many things which you choose to remember as demonstrations. You
choose to condemn my offerings as valueless 'thought experiments' while
simultaneously assessing your 'thought experiments' as demonstrations.
I'm tired of it.
If you really wish to 'demonstrate' -- demonstrate which of the two 1 kg lead
spheres will be in front, behind, or on a par with each other when passing
perihelion.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 25 May, 2008 12:53:25 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Paul,
It is so simple I can demonstrate changes in acceleration in any and every
Reference frame i can create or test...however your assertions that
accelerations in free fall cannot be detected are not based on any thing in the
lab ..it is only your imagination.....you must first demonstrate your positions
before you claim your assumptions as proof of your assertions...... The logical
contradictions are all yours...you canot demonstrate anything without first
assuming your conclusions...where as we do not have any problems with taking
data for what it is.....Again you must first demonstrate via a observation that
the observation you wish to consider as a illusion is in fact a illusion first
.....it is not logical to first assume it is a illusion and the use that
assumption to interpret which observations you take as face value and which
ones you take as "illusions"
Your so wrong Paul and it is very sad that you don’t seem even capable seeing
your own inconsistencies.....i don't have a problem with what is shown in the
lab..the problem is .....the only things you attempt to use from the lab do
not support your positions unless you first assume the very conclusions you are
attempting to validate with those observations from the "lab" . You use your
assumptions to interpret the data that tell you exactly what you want to
here!?.......I find it humorous however sad that you cant see that you nor
Regener never actually demonstrate anything. You Like Regner simply make
assertions that make perfect sense but only if you assume the very conclusions
you are trying to reach first!? Otherwise the things you can show at face value
show a motionless earth centered universe…..because as I have already
demonstrated accelerations even in free fall no mater what Physics construct
you take can and are detected…..You
nor Regner have any place to hide in these debates……..so go think about it and
come up with something coherent and consistent that can demonstrate a logical
path to it’s conclusion that I have never heard before…
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 1:43:30 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Allen D
You said -
.....i perfere what can be demonstrated in the lab not the logical
contridictions of nonsense and fool myself into beliving it is somehow
more reasonable!?
Yeu preffer a dimenstrushrn in thr labratty butt diselebive w hen it'''''s nud
feel seize inda reele welrd!?!?!?!? What a contridtcion inn terims! A vetrible
reservibel fo logacle sartintee .!.!.!.!.! a xempel fo cornfussed logacel miss
aopilkatoin for gottin fings bakedrs cas of wot yew wonnerd toobee rite inna
frest plase! Hah!? Reeeely!?
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 23 May, 2008 11:39:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
________________________________
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
________________________________
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
Other related posts:
