[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 09:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
"But the reality is a presumption in both cases" ( not my quote )
I was critiqueing it.
But this was my comment about that quote above:
The reality is fixed, but the perception of that reality by humans
is variable ( correct or incorrect ).
Bernie
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You are so very close.........you state......"There is no fixed point of
reference and Thus one is assumed"..and Bernie states ..."But the reality is a
presumption in both cases". But the
subtlety of point that both staments overlook is that in a AC frame work any
reference point can be chosen and it will be equivalent to any other, (The
original HC postions was on hokie ground as well)... now in the GC frame work
the earth is considered the fixed point of reference ...regardless, what is
missed is that LOGICALLY you must begin with what you have not what you do not
have...... YOU ARE ON EARTH! therefore the logical without regard for theory or
assumptions you begin with where you are not where you imagine you could be or
what is to start from!........... In either case the earth as the fixed point
of reference to begin the discovery process is the only logical position from
which any discovery can start and any claim can be made from....... the problem
is that the switch from that logical starting point Earth to the AC view is
not consistent with observation or experimentation available to man at any time
though out the discovery process without assuming
that HC/AC is the preferred construct.......can?t you see!?.. That was the
whole point of the discovery process itself!!.......so HC/AC can not claim any
logical reason for accepting or perusing HC/AC without interpreting the
observations and experiments by assuming the very thing they were/are
attempting to prove..circular fallacy! .....yes you must start with what you
have not with what you do not have the only frame of reference available to you
is EARTH!!!!...it is impossible to logically begin with or jump to any other
reference frame except in imagination...yes experiments could be performed on
the moon or mars but they have not!....all the actual experiments and
observations that can be performed on relative motion and such here on earth
(the only logical starting point to begin in from) all show that motion
measured at the Earth can distinguish between relative motion and real motion
as defined from that reference point (the earth..the only ref point we have)
that
is the only reference point that has actually been tested and thus there is no
logical reason that one can conclude that it proves anything other then there
is a difference between real motion and relative motion at least all motions
actually measured not just imagined......the experiments were specifically
designed to show a result regardless of frame of reference........It did not
show what they thought it would but not because the experiment or underlying
physics was ever demonstrated at fault but because they assumed a conclusion
that was only imagined not observed it was only then that they invoked a New
physics to support a alternative conclusion which was already assumed but not
proven...you like them have fallen into the circle of fallacy by assuming
something that only has meaning if its ultimate conclusions are true and
assumed first but that is the whole point of using them is to prove the very
thing they are attempting to underlie...Can?t you see?....There is
and was never any logical reason based on observations or experimentation to
1. Leave GC view
2. Pursue HC/AC particularly with the observations and experience available
at any time in any generation
without assuming the HC/AC conclusion first and then interpreting all the
Observations and experience to prove the very thing they were supposed to
distinguish for us...you have already done that by assuming it is plausible or
preferred first, but you have not shown why except to say it could
be..!?........The logical conundrum that this HC/AC method had produced is
ironic in the sense that due to the progression of that flawed logic and
acceptance of the HC/AC paradigm they have created a since that even if HC/AC
were the truth you could not prove it by its own "logical" constructs..in fact
there is no possibility of proving anything absolute in a relativistic
environment, the subtly that you miss as well as it does not nor can it prove
that the earth is not the Central point or motionless in space...its not even
trying too it is only trying to perpetuate the myth that accepting the
illogical methodology used to get from GC to HC was logical and therefore
nothing can
really be proven .....once you understand this then you will be able to see
that without begging the original questions of motion first HC/AC is not even
plausible except in it?s own imagination! Even is HC/AC were true it is so far
removed from observation and experience you could not prove it even if it were
true...If observation and experience are not interpreted in light of a
conclusion it is supposed to support then the only thing that is left is a
logical conclusion that either the earth is at center motionless or the
alternative cannot be proven and thus logically untenable in any
case.....therefore the only logical path to pursue is the one we have had from
the beginning of the discovery process the earth is the fixed point of
reference regardless of what ever else you could imagine as true because even
if it were true it is not demonstrable...the only demonstrable premise that can
be shown as so far as anything can be shown to be true is the Earth is THE FIXED
reference point in the Universe..and that is exactly what ll observations and
experience show if nothing other is assumed!
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: "But the reality is a
presumption in both cases".
The reality is fixed, but the perception of that reality by humans
is variable ( correct or incorrect ).
Bernie
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DIV { MARGIN: 0px } Allen, perhaps you are one of the "greys" the
good aliens from outer space. Sometimes your reasoning is very alien to me. But
then when I was young, my friends mother said to me, all electricians were mad.
So it may be my fault.
So in an attempt at cross cultural comunication, let me test your reasoning
against my own, to see if there is some compatibility, that I might understand
what you are saying.
Take this simple example I gave to Paul, to which he agreed.. I want your
aquiesence, which would be a good starting point for consensus, and further
developement ...
Philip: In free space if two worlds A and B are coming together to collide at
100mph, no one can say what the real motions are out of an infinite number of
variations which may be:
A is stationary,
A is moving towards B,
A is moving away from B
or
B is stationary,
B is moving toward A
B is moving away from A.
And all this infinite number of variables must have the resultant combination
that will be a 100mph collision.
There is no fixed point of reference. Thus one is assumed. I who live on A
can chose my world as static. You on B can chose that your world is static.
Nothing changes mathmatically, it wil be a 100mph collision. But the reality is
a presumption in both cases, and niether world is static. Therefore not a
proven reality.
Paul: Agreed. I don't know of any dissenting view.
Allen? How say you?
Philip.
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
---------------------------------
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
Other related posts:
