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.