[geocentrism] Re: Question begging

• From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:34:56 +0000 (GMT)

```Philip M
Comments to your post of Sun Mar 18 03:18:12 2007 in my usual teal.
=======================================
Paul said, to Allen My comments were addressed to you, Bernie B and Marc V only.
"You may care to plot on the same coordinates, the data given by geocentric
sources to see how a disordered universe behaves."
there are two errors or presumptions here Paul.
1. Your presumption that the geocentric position is disordered. Well if you
compare the smooth curve which the HC based physics returns for the orbital
period of Earth satellites against their period with the curve of distance
against period using the GC statements (there are no equivalent GC formulae),
you'll see what I mean.
2. And your presumption that the formula presented would act any different if
used in the geocentric situation. If you can show me that the GC statement that
the Moon orbits the Earth in 24h 52m (av) at the measured distance and make it
conform to Kepler's third law, I'll call you Mandrake!
From my last comment to Allen you ignored my opinion of the aether rotation
which gives the "illusion" of a rotating and moving world, in a real rotating
universe. Given the existance of the elusive aether, granted. I just thought it
better to pass over this matter.
It has been said many times by Neville and others, that one can chose either
position, GC/HC and provided the corrections were made, to conform with the
base chosen the mathmatics would come up with the same answer. I believe you
may be correct. [ Note -- I would have punctuated this sentence as follows
"...and provided the corrections were made, to conform with the base chosen,
the mathmatics would come up with the same answer." Is this what you intended?
It does rather change the sense of the sentence.
I know what Allen is TRYING to sayand that is not wrong. It has been said so
often.
In free space if two bodies 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 between, A is stationary, moving towards B, or moving away from B
and/or B is stationary, moving toward A or moving away from A. There is no
fixed point of reference. Thus one is assumed. I who live on A can chose my
point as static. You on B can chose the opposite. Nothing changes
mathmatically, it wil be a 100mph collision. But the reality is a presumption
in both cases, and therefore not a proven reality. Agreed. I don't know of any
dissenting view.
You speak of order within an assumed "parameter", based upon what you consider
ideal in a universe that evolved from nothing. I can "assume" if you like, that
the universe was designed by an intelligence, which if it desired could make
the world stationary, and the rest of the ordered universe comply with natural
law within that framework. Given omnipotence, agreed. But this isn't science.
That the universe is as modern cosmologists describe it is reasonably assumed
on the basis of their belief in the sun being the centre of the solar system. I
acknowledge that.
However you must admit, that if the solar system as it is was centred around
the earth, and not the sun, then their model of the rest of the universe would
be wrong. I think I agree with this but your description is not really clear.
Therefore it only remains for us to present two models alone, geocentric or
heliocentric in exclusion of any other cosmos, the solar system standing alone.
For simplicity we may put all the planets sun and moons on the same plane
represented by a disc. One disc is on a shaft through the sun and the other on
a shaft through the earth..These we call the G main disc and the H main disc.
For argument, agreed.
Mounted on this disc we have secondary discs centred on their orbital centres
for planets around the sun and moons around the planets. OK I think.
Set every thing in motion, according to what is seen from earth, The H disc is
revolving once in 365 days. The G disc is revolving in 24 hours. I am ignoring
for simplicity again the need for certain discs to move vertically for seasons.
OK.
As I showed in the example above the observer cannot tell which of [these]
scenarios is the correct or true one. Only true if you rely upon simple
observation. 400 years of scientific observation however, has decided that it
is possible to determine which one is correct.
It merely remains for the geocentrist to explain how your orbital laws, in
regard to sun and moon still remain in force.
This we do by calling upon the existence of the disc as a reality. This is the
aether. A condition of space which effects ["affects" I think you mean?]
everything material, and aetherical.. (fields) The secondary discs are
distortions of the aether caused by the presence of the central mass, which
actually is the cause of the gravitiic and orbital laws. I'll need more detail
here before I can agree.
The laws remain because we allow you to use figures in your calculations that
are relative to your base line rather than recalculating them to the relative
motion of the disc (aether) You do this all the time by calling it your "frame
of reference" as I alluded to in the collision example above.
From here we get out of the G v H debate, and put it back in the realms of pure
science. The aether is still a valid concept debated in science, if for no
other reason than that certain phenomena involving wave theory of EMR cannot be
explained without recourse to it. But not, so far as I'm aware, within
Newtonian physics as it relates to the motions of the bodies within the solar
system.
So we can now proceed with the discussion you called for so much , the aether.
Unfortunately, my references may be equivalent to those available to the Wright
brothers during their great venture.
Keep this on the back burner till you have digested our absolute probables...
and I'll get you some aether. "...our..."? Are you stating categorically that
Neville Jones, Geradus Bouw, Marshall Hall and probably others are 99.998% in
agreement?
Philip.
========================================
Standing by
Paul D

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