[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:23:57 -0400
Paul,
Allen,
Kudos on now typing in a single case, color and font style??. Paragraph
breaks still need some work :-)
My logic differs slightly from yours in length and focus:
HC logic:
If Newton?s laws were valid, HC would be valid.
But Newton?s laws are valid
So HC is valid.
GC logic:
If the aether were valid, GC would be valid.
But the aether is valid
So GC is valid.
But Newton?s laws are invalid for galactic rotation and , if HC is valid,
then AC ? relativity - cannot be valid.
So HC is invalid.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Allen Daves
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:04 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
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:
