[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
"physical reality of orbits by minor bodies around the major bodies"......"Now
when we come along as geocentrists and insist that in this one specific
case"....."we are claiming a unique reality that goes against the
norm"...........No, we are claiming your defintion of "norm" is an assumption
that begs the question!......... If the sun goes around the earth then your
"norm" would certainly not be the norm for all larger objects to go around
smaller ones...that is the whole point to asking the question in the first
place..if you just assume what the "norm" is ..why ask the question to begin
with?....You don't realise that you doing nothing more then invoking assumtions
as the foundations for your arguments...and what is worse your assumtions are
the conclusions of your arguments........you are assuming that is the "norm" in
the first place and then applying that assumption to your anylisis of what you
see.......how do you know all larger go around
smaller?!...I see the sun larger obviousl going around me the
smaller!... ....We are not "claiming a unique reality that goes against the
norm " we are telling you that your "norm" is nothing more then a "statment of
faith" by which you choose to interprete data in...........In fact Phil if you
look out you see the sun and the planets all move around you and
no detectable motions when all motions that are created can be detected & or
distinquished........that is the "norm"! You can't assume that is the "norm"
because what constitutes the "norm" for the universe is the question that begs
!!!!
Secondly:...........The "norm" for all objects no matter how large is that they
have a center.....well what is the center of the universe?!...that is the
question and the fact that smaller objects out in space orbit larger ones does
not define the center of anything!. ....come on what is the "norm" and what
observations do you base that on?!......you cant appeal to the "norm"
Phil...the norm" was that the sun and stars all orbit the earth for thousands
of years it was as plain as the nose on your face......your version of "norm"
is a "johny come lattly"...Your idea of "norm" is not based on any objective
defintion of "norm" but rather a johny come latly world view that
reinterprets what is "the norm" is........!?
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:33:14 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Therfore would Regner give just one proof of heliocentrism? Jack.
Jack I can do that easily.
We accept the mathmatically correct, and physical reality of orbits by minor
bodies around the major bodies.. We accept for example the moons of the earth
and other planets as a reality based upon this physics. Just as from this we
can accurately predict satellite orbit mechanics around the earth and other
celestial bodies of this solar system. We even accept the observed reality of
the relative motions of binaty star systems as observed..
Now when we come along as geocentrists and insist that in this one specific
case , the roles of the sun and earth are reversed, we are claiming a unique
reality that goes against the norm.. Further our claim is based upon and
determined by theological concepts, outside the normal criteria of physics.
Normally it would appear that the earths rotation around the sun is a self
evident truth.. It is up to us to prove that in respect of the earth alone,
the natural laws as observed in the universe do not apply in this specific
instance.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 6:24 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Proof of heliocentrism
I have decided to start a new thread now that stellar parallax or the celestial
ploes is not a proof for either heliocentrism or geocentrism.
Might it not be quicker for all of us, in our discussion regarding the
helio/geo debate, to ask Regner for just one proof of heliocentrism. So far it
would appear that the M-M etc. experiments are all being interpreted and
corrected by heliocentric theories. This is pointless since it is the helio
idea that is being questioned. The problem, if any with the interferometer
experiments, has to be addressed exactly for what it is and not quetioned by
that which it questions - does that make grammatical sense?. I think it would
be useful to know just what helio's pin their position on. As with evolution it
may be easier to highlight the scientific problems and flaws with
heliocentricity, since that is the current paradigm, rather than spend endless
hours trying to convince helios to consider geocentrism arguments.
Therfore would Regner give just one proof of heliocentrism?
Jack
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1461 - Release Date: 5/22/2008 4:44
PM
Other related posts:
