[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Paul,
Thats ok..but I think if you will read my postings again you will see that my
point is that the criticisms of HC reasoning can NOT be directly applied to GC
reasoning? All experiments to demonstrate the HC perspective have not been
successful without assuming that HC is true and thus requires additional new
physics to explain why things look like a duck quack like a duck but are only
"illusions" of what it theoretically could be....but just not really..? I will
keep trying to put it together for you in a consolidated and easy to understand
way in the next posting or two..I really think you are not that far from seeing
it ......I think it important to note that my arguments are primarily
addressing the methodology and logic of the process of discovery regarding the
mechanics, not the mechanics itself except indirectly... ..The criticisms of HC
only apply to HC and not GC because GC is the only and logical starting point
for all discovery not because we assume it is
true(beg the question) but because you must always start with what you
have(where you are) not with what you do not have ( where you are not)..you
only have one frame of reference that you can and have made real, actual, not
make believe, experimentations and observations from......If science is about
real observations and experiments then one must begin with that ..Now the
observations and experiments that have been performed do not demonstrate that
the universe would look the same from every other location in the universe
without assuming that is true even though it is not actually observed it is
only imagined. They only show that we appear to be at the center of the cosmos
and there is no observation here on earth that tells us it would or could look
the same from any other location in the universe that can only be imagined but
not demonstrated ..The experiments with light and motion do not suggest that
there is no difference between frames of reference unless you use
the argument that since it does not show what we expect then all frame must be
the same again imagination used to interpret observation, not observation
itself?.. The theories that are used to explain how or why the universe would
look the same and light and motion would not be affected by the frame of
reference depending if it were in motion or not only has any meaning if you
assume that it is true first. But, that is the issue that has not been proven
and the question that must be addressed not merely assumed. Those theories
have absolutely no logical validity to them since you can not prove or even
demonstrate them without assuming they are true first and then interpret the
observations and experimentations using that assumption which is the every
thing you are trying to prove..!? The theories that are used to interpret the
universe as AC are not ones that are observed or experienced they are only
imagined first then used to developed theories as to how and why that
is true?? when you look at airplane over head your first impulse is not
?hey I am moving down here? without some other direct observation/ experience
that you are.. The same holds true here..we could all be going around the sun
but what tells us that ?..... some theory whose only ?proof? is the fact that
if it were true then that would support that theory..? That is not ?science?
that is imagination?.. IF you observe matter centered on the earth as so far
as you can observe it there is no other logical conclusion that you can make
then the earth is at the center a theory that states every thing looks the
same from every other location would be valid if you in fact observed that but
you don?t so even if it were true you cannot logically claim that is the case
based on the fact that if some other theory were true then it could explain why
it only looks that way?how come this is so hard for you? IF I conduct a
experiment with a apparatus that can distinguish between
motion that I observe and no motion that I observe even if you wish to say
from my ?frame of reference? How in the world can you claim that it shows
anything other then a difference between motion and non motion?.... To invoke
some theory that can not be tested by its own definition ?all frames are equal?
begs the question how do you know all frames are equal ? How do you know
without observation and experience from other frames that you could not tell
what is moving out there ( in space) when you can down here(on earth)
??especially since there is nothing in what you do observe or experience down
here (on earth) that tells you that without assuming that?s the case first.
What is the logic that demonstrates that you would not be able to see the
difference anywhere else if all the places that you perform those experiments
show that you can see the difference every place you make the attempt. What is
the observation and experience that tells you that that thing would not
work the same way it works here ( sagnac & interferometers ) ..To say that AC
is the most probable case and that they would not work the same because it
would be true and even necessary if AC were true is not science! ..it only begs
the questions? Why could it not work the same there as it does here? What do we
observer or experience that tells us that it would not work there? Since we
observe objects changing there appearance depending on your orientation to them
on earth ..what do we observe or experience here on earth, the only place we
have actually tested, that tells us things look the same out there no matter
what your orientation is? ..could it be true yes in theory but even if it were
true you have no logical reason for arriving to that conclusion only someone?s
imagination that it is that way?only some theoretical construct that tells you
that but not actual observations or experience for the conclusion or even the
theories that are used to base the conclusion
on. Without those it is not science it is just imagination!
You can imagine that the universe looks the same from any frame of reference
and you can imagine that sagnac and inferometers would not do the same things
they do here on earth, the only place you have actually performed those
observations and experiments from. But, until you perform them in other places
there is no logical thought process that can led you to any other conclusions
then the conclusions that apply to at least the RF where you are? to say that
physics is so strange that light would not distinguish motion out there just as
it does here because you imagine that all frames are equal even though you have
never observed and or experienced that is not science nor is it a logical
conclusion even if it turned out to be true!
The bottom line is even if HC/AC were true it is not been accepted and
arrived at through a logically valid deductive process?? where GC is the only
possible logically deduced conclusion that one can arrive at based on what we
have not what we do not have. This is true to date and at any time in history.
It is therefore the only logical path to and for discovery that can be pursued.
?Logic dose not dictate what is truth is but truth cannot be reasoned
external of logic?
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
I felt a bit guilty about that post in retrospect. But Allen -- I only get a
fraction of what you say almost every time. I feel I need the services of
Bletchly Park! It really is most frustrating.
I didn't get an answer to the request I'm afraid. However, I didn't actually
expect to. My point really was that most of the criticisms of HC reasoning can
be directly applied to GC reasoning -- if your mind is open. There are no
certainties in this game -- only probabilities. If there were certainties, the
game would be over!
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
