[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

"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  Allen.. 

"norm"  means what is normally accepted..  true or false, that is the norm. 

No more need to be said..  Of course it is an assumption, but it has evidential 
experimental support. Allen, Rocketeers using the calculated masses of the sun 
or any other solar system body, can accurately predict and launch a known mass 
of vehicle to a specific orbital height.. that proves the normal physics 
involved in these mechanical actions..  In our case we also make assumptions, 
when it comes to scientific answers. 

Allen to say the earth is rock solid and does not even wobble from the 
eccentricities of the moon and suns orbits, requires an alternate theory.. And 
yes it is not the norm as accepted by consensus..  

But from every angle that I see it, for the earth to stay as stable and 
immovable as Scripture tells us, it would have to be a SUPERNATURAL FORCE.. 

I WOULD BE HAPPIER WITH THAT, THAN SOME OF THE SKIRTING AND FLIRTING WITH 
PSEUDO SCIENCE THAT YOU HUFF AND PUFF. 

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 9:00 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism


  "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



------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  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: