[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:52:59 +0000 (GMT)
Big, black.
----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 5:30:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Paul, .....You have the roles completely reversed yet again?! I did not claim
you had a mental illness.. Hair splitting .i said your arguments thus far
exemplify all those attributes....How could that be if i didn't so
suffer?....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...and if it could, NASA would not deny it -- they would use it and you
would fall over yourself to tell me whether the green 1kg lead sphere or the
red 1kg lead sphere won the race to perihelion..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..I have no idea what you're talking about...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? Because it has an IQ of 150?..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 ...?!I have no idea what you're talking about.
......Your and Regners arguments have been and not been all at the same
time....you feel wilted by my arguments because yours wont work.Yeah!
Right!..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....................!?
Allen, in all the time I've known you, you have distinguished yourself as
someone who will not engage in a debate. Your tactics are entirely
diversionary, obfuscationist and sophistic. A long time ago, on the subject of
circular arguments, I asked you if a statement of the form -- "We know that God
is true because the Bible tells us so. And how can we be sure that the Bible
tells us the truth? Because it is God's word!" is a circular argument or not.
You absolutely ignored the question then and subsequently and I'm quite sure
you will do it again now.
A long time ago, in the British House of Commons if memory serves me, one
member referred to another member in terms which I cannot here repeat verbatim
as our ever vigilant moderator would surely bin me, so I will render that
statement in clinical terms. He said that the member was "... all urine and
flatulence." He could have been addressing you. Far from wilting your opponents
with your arguments, the truth is you won't engage. It's like wrestling with a
column of smoke. Like grappling with an eel in a bucket of warm fat.
On at least three occasions I have very frankly and openly asked you to engage
in the pursuit of truth. You responded on each occasion in a manner which
suggested that you would join with me in this pursuit. And on each occasion on
the next exchange you returned to your sad, predictable form. Three strikes
Allen. I should have learnt by now I guess.
Paul D
----- 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.
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail
Other related posts:
