[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

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 
......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 -
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. ...
A major mood disorder in which there are episodes of both mania and depression.
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 
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 
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 
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 
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

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 
 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 
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

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.

Other related posts: