Paul, .....You have the roles completely reversed yet again?! I did not claim you had a mental illness...i said your arguments thus far exemplify all those attributes........in any case..........I have addressed the points........you and Regner have not.........They are the same points i have listed now for months .... The earth has no detectable acceleration around the sun therefore no such motion as per HA?AC can exist.....the reasons you say it is not detectable are because accelerations in or of a free fall cannot be detected...based on thus far the equivalence principle.....Newton claims just the opposite.... 1. If there is not way to detect the earth’’’’s acceleration around the sun in free fall, then how does that same grav in that exact same inertial ref frame create an observable and different acceleration with the tides?.......If it does then you can’’’’t claim the acceleration in free fall cant be detected..... If the tides are not accelerated by the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a bigger problem don’’’’t you?..... 2.Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant star..... This is valid question regardless of what inertia is or is not or the cause of inertia....how does inertia know that we are in orbit verse just taking a curved path in space wrt the same body? ..The equivalence principle used to explain this states that inertia is a reaction to Grav fields.......INERTIA IS GRAVITY!..Regner does not agree that inertia is gravity...we both agree on that......... but Relativity...... he used Relativity to explain why accelerations cannot be detected in free fall........me and Regner agree that inertia is not Gravity...where we differ is Regner claims it is a force i say it is not a force........but the explanations he used makes those claims........!? Wake up PAUL!!! 3....?! How you can have a detectable change in orientation wrt a body (in grav/inertial free fall) while not having a detectable acceleration wrt the same body..... appelaing to newton who defines it in terms of absolute motion on the one hand for part of your explination and then relativity that is mutually exclusivecan claiming it is a lovgical path to that conclusion is Schizoid ......Your and Regners arguments have been and not been all at the same time....you feel wilted by my arguments because yours wont work...Regner makes a speach that states absolutely nothing except that he disagrees with his own explanations....suddenly you have a renewed confidence in Physics...that is a bi polar position......there is nothing consistent about of Regner's cherypicking and disavowing his own argument that demonstrates anything except the terms i used to describe your positions/ arguments....................!? ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:04:26 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism Allen D Well you're nothing if not predictable. No retraction -- no points addressed. Regarding definitions - neurotic Neurosis, also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder, is a "catch all" term that refers to any mental imbalance that causes distress, but, unlike a psychosis or some personality disorders, does not prevent rational thought or an individual's ability to function in daily life. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotic bipolar A major mood disorder in which there are episodes of both mania and depression. www.snowdenmentalhealth.com/glossary.mgi schizoidfrantic No definitions were found for schizoidfrantic. However schizoid returned - Having symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia . See the entire definition of Schizoid - Definition of Schizophrenia Schizophrenia: One of several brain diseases whose symptoms that may include loss of personality (flat affect), agitation, catatonia, confusion, psychosis, unusual behavior, and withdrawal. The illness usually begins in early adulthood. The causes of schizophrenia are not yet fully known. Schizophrenia is not caused by poor parenting practices. A variant version of a gene called COMT has been found to increase the risk for developing schizophrenia. The normal version of the COMT gene helps process dopamine, a brain chemical. The variant version of the COMT gene is less active in this regard. Other genes and environmental factors may well be involved in schizophrenia. Treatment is with neuroleptic medication and supportive interpersonal therapy. The prognosis is currently fairly good, with two-thirds of those diagnosed recovering significantly. Source: MedTerms™ Medical Dictionary http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5417 I'm the outsider here Allen and I'm frequently at odds with most of the other members. Fully cognisant of this state of affairs and in no way accusing you of these mental disorders, I'd predict that should you and I be assessed by the members at large on this forum as to whether or not either of us exhibit signs of mental abnormality of any kind, the honest assessment of those self same members would be against me so presenting. And your suggestions are still insulting. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 3:43:48 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism "This is just plain insulting. Withdraw it and I may address one or more of your points." This is a long post but as i reference at the bottom it is more for posterity then the current foolishness i'm dealing with........ Paul you left out the last and most important part of what i said, which was......."by definition"...you should look thoses terms up and see how they relate to your arguments .........it is not a insult........... it is fact...insults are subjective in nature but facts are "scientific"/ objective in nature......... that description is the current state of the explanations of the issues and how those issues affect the overall debate of HC/AC vs GC.....the only "addressing" of these issues you or Regner have even attempted has been with contradictions and incoherent inconsistencies and or mere assertions of "axioms" in your theories as to why your theories are correct....LOL. Paul lets be honest here, neither you nor Regner have any intention of seriously dealing with the nity gritty of any of these issues. Making comments does not continue addressing the problems and or inconsistencies and or contradictions , any more then a student or a politician who writes of gives a ten page speech about change and how we are better then this....in substance he states absolutely nothing and the dumb masses love him for it ......LOL.............You and he have had plenty of time to do so if your objective was to ascertain the most logical position between HC and GC based on observations and evaluations of data in logic.... .....If that had been truly your aim then you would have to admit (even if HC /AC were somehow true) that GC is the only logical conclusion anyone can claim to have arrived at without invoking pure imaginations to explain the results of ordinary and even extraordinary observations and experiments....you would have to admit the choice of HC/AC over GC is one of philosophical choice not observational data...even Hawking...Hoel and others know this.....you and Regner are only fooling your selves, if I were wrong you would had no problem demonstrating it by now, but come on....guys....quoting the assertions of your theory as the evidence that supposedly shows your theory is thus demonstrated!? ......You and Regner talk about things...........you talk around things..... but you don’t actually deal with your problems, in fact im not sure if you even see the significance of them............. No, I think Regner prefers to ignore it and fool himself and people like you into believing "nothing is wrong" with the HC/AC paradigm ...folk like allen are just "unreasonable" and better to ignore those kinds of "attacks".......yea sure.......LOL.........That’s fine, fool yourself with what ever you like, but at the end of the day.... I’m not the one who has such problems demonstrating my position objectivly without evoking my position as it’s own justifications wich is a assumption which again is subjective ....... At every opportunity you and Regner have had thus far you seem to demonstrate nothing that can be reproduced in the real world without assuming the real world is just an illusion first...but you cant even demonstrate anything that would be evidentiary to support that assertion.....nor can you or he make anything you guys have put forward fit consistently with the rest of MS theory.....LOL..... you think you & Regner are making "sense". Your making foolishness and attempting to suggest and or insist that it is everyone else who are not being "reasonable"....poor Regner has had to wait "weeks if not months" for only 5 challenges..........LOL.......all I have asked is that you guys first start with and demonstrate some observation that you accept at face value without assuming anything is just an illusion and...start from that and show us how we reached a logical conclusion that the earth is moving. however you cannot put anything forward that: 1. Assumes the very thing or conclusion that you are trying to demonstrate (engaging in endless circular fallacies) 2. Quit contradicting your self and or your arguments ( ie relativity ) own terms & or constructs 3. Demonstrate a logical method & path for your conclusions.. 4. Get your applications between subjective and objective and or observations and imaginations clear................ Quit feeling sorry for yourselves by accusing this side of the very things you are and have attempted to engage in...procrastination, lack of civilized scientific discussion.. et all Speaking "softly" and or with "gentle words" or with whatever you want to define a "civilized scientific discussion" with does not make baseless assertions and logical contradictions more humble or more reasonable....it only makes you more "subtle" but still even more arrogant then your detractors and their positions that can be demonstrated...lol.. ... thus it ultimately just it makes you more foolish...again by definition...look it up.....just exactly when did you start believing that folk who hold a position with soft words and subtle phrases that cannot be demonstrated are more "civilized" then folk who simply refuse to let fools run the store..?! If you are offended ...well you should...but not because of what i said is subjective but because of what you have demonstrated in a very objectivly observed manner.......otherwise demonstrate my error ...but don’t accuse me of " being "insulting" when I point out your error.....The insult here, thus far is from foolish and ignorant arguments that suppose I’m the one being "unreasonable" .....Paul, if anyone has been "insulted" it would be me & using soft spoken words and playing the victim will not work with me... a fool that insist the doctor is foolish is not humble no matter how soft spoken he is..........it is just foolishness........wake up! although you appear incapable of seeing your foolishness....i will engage you as long as you wish to do so....not because i think i will convinve you but im more then comfortable letting posteritiy judge between the arguments you and Regner put forward vs the ones I put forward and deciding for itself which of the two was more "reasonable"............ ----- Original Message ---- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 2:08:34 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism Allen D You said - From Allen Daves Sun May 25 16:05:33 2008 Paul what you put forward quite simply neurotic, bipolar and schizoidfrantic This is just plain insulting. Withdraw it and I may address one or more of your points. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, 25 May, 2008 4:05:33 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism 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. ________________________________ Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. ________________________________ Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.