[geocentrism] Re: Question begging

We woke up in a world where things appear to move around us we had and have no 
sensation of movement itself?That is where this whole question of earths 
movement must and did begin???everything moving around me??.from that point a 
process of observation and experience then proceeds to ascertain what is and is 
not moving?.well those experiments which were to make that distinction did and 
showed that we are in deed not moving the observations of mass centered on the 
earth also promote the earths centrality of that position as well....... you 
cannot interpret those observations and experiments in light of a HC framework 
because that is what those experiments and observations are all about ?this is 
your circular fallacy? those who developed and concocted those experiments and 
observations were not assuming a earth centered universe..(they were not 
invoking a circular fallacy when they developed & performed them) a earth not 
in motion is exactly what they show and the only thing
 that those observations demonstrate without invoking the circular fallacies of 
earths movement first?It amazes me that you cannot see just how ridiculous your 
argument is and the fact that the only way to even begin to interpret data as 
consistent with HC is to assume that HC is preferred.. there is no experiment 
conducted on earth with regard to gravity or anything else that demonstrates 
anything other then what the initial observations  and experiments things 
moving around you  without invoking the HC circular fallacy first?..HC is not 
logically plausible based on what is available  without assuming that what you 
do not have is real??your posting makes no sense without assuming that it is 
preferred first. which is what everything that led up to and including today?s 
model of HC was developed to prove in the first place,,,the problem is that 
nothing ever did without assuming that HC was the preferred conclusion to begin 
with which is what it is trying to prove..!??..why
 is this so hard for you guys to  grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness..? 
until you have a observations and experience for earths movement your position 
is as plausible as aliens & adductions.............they might be true they 
might not.......thus we should build our lives around the "fact" they are the 
most reasonable and plausible .... explanation for all unknown 
Phenomena...!??..your arguments and examples are in fact examples not of HC's 
plausibility but rather foolishness of the highest order...demonstrate or 
concede but don't use GC's evidence for HC by begging the question that HC is 
preferred...because until you have that evidence for HC all the evidence 
supports GC without assuming anything starting with the very first observation 
ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of 
movement?.....all subsequent Observations and experiments have been consistent 
with that but not one has shown itself to be for HC without assuming HC is
 preferred first which is the question you begg and the circular fallacy you 
without fail must invoke!
   
   
  
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          
    Philip M
  May I compliment you on an excellent summing up of this issue. I trust that 
my support will not dilute it.
  I'd like to add a few things also if I may. To --
  Bernie B and Marc V
  -- you are labouring under a mis-aprehension concerning zero gravity at an 
altitude of 22,000 miles (give or take). The acceleration of gravity extends to 
infinity and can be calculated from the product of the Universal Gravitational 
Constant and the two masses divided by the square of the distance between the 
centres of gravity of the two masses -- in maths terms -
  a = Gm1m2/d^2
  Secondly, if you go to 
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/gravity_acceleration_equation_radius.php 
you will find on line calculators for the above expression under Newton's Law 
of Gravity. To calculate orbital periods for any two bodies, just below that, 
you'll find Kepler's third law. To use these calculators, you'll need certain 
parameters and these you can find at http://www.nineplanets.org/data1.html and 
http://www.nineplanets.org/data.html. Remember that the height above sea level 
means nothing here, it is the distance from the centre of gravity that you 
need. Everything you need can be found to calculate orbits for any satellite of 
Earth (or other body if you are interested) on these two sites.
  If you can be bothered, you might find it constructive to generate a list of 
orbital periods for a range of values of say, from 100 miles out to the Moon 
and plot them on a piece of graph paper. You'll see that a regular curve will 
be shown -- just the way you would expect an ordered universe to behave. You 
may care to plot on the same coordinates, the data given by geocentric sources 
to see how a disordered universe behaves.
  You can also plug in the values quoted for a given orbiting object, from the 
shuttle to the Moon, and verify that the values obtained are as quoted. You 
will of course find that the orbital period obtained for the Moon will not be 
the 24h 52m that you observe, but rather the 27d 7h 43m (av) sidereal period 
which of course is different from the time between successive New Moon 
appearances which is 29d 12h 44m (av).
  Have fun!
Paul D
  


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

Other related posts: