[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
"means what is normally accepted.. true or false, that is the norm." .."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.."
Requires a alternate Theory form what?! what was the "orginal" based on?..what
observations showed demanded that it wobble? or that we needed somthing
different then what we see is what we get?....The "alternate Theory" is HC Phil
not GC!
......How do you know all larger go around smaller again?!...I see the sun
which as the rocketers all agree is larger obviously going around me the
smaller!...did you know that 3 of the computational specialists used in the
appollo program were geocentrist..so how did the rocketers show the smaller
always to go around the lager...... ....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..You
still dont see...your idea of norm was just the opisite for thousands of
years..but it is also the reason you will never be able to prove
anything.....you just swollow the inconsitnecies, logical contridictions and
tose out any and all repetable, demonstratable experimentations that can be
performed out the window in favor of ideas that can only be imagined never
reproduced and call it science............
..I have for months now proven HC wrong ther is no acceleration of the earth
around the sun....all the "explintions" are completly contridictory and or in
oposition to any repetable and demonstratable observation anywere......but hey
if you want to belive that accelerations wrt to bodies both can and cannot be
detected simoltaniously wrt same bodies at the same time......then go
ahead....but know this the Psudo science here is with Phil & HC/AC' s
proponets not Allen.....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!?
"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:
