Yes, I agree with your reasoning absolutely! However, your reasoning here, which I agree with, is addressing and focusing more on the logic and validity of (a) given mechanics or combination of mechanics ( a single/multiple stops along a train of thought/ the destinations themselves).......while I am attempting to address and focusing more specifically the thought process ( the rail road tracks themselves not the destinations) for the most logical path to pursue the discovery of the mechanics regardless of what those mechanics are in reality, not necessarily the validity of any given Mechanics.....I know the two approaches cannot be totally isolated from the other the difference is just one of emphasis I think ......Both approaches are necessary I believe. I just picked this approach here because to me it is mostly overlooked and thus more subtle and the more difficult of the arguments to make...Paul??s and any other dissenting comments are useful so as to force and refine the clarity........ However, I also believe that it could ultimately be the most powerful since it attacks the fundamental reasoning process itself for any given "thought train"as in the HC/AC thought train........ Akin to the railroad tracks and route chosen, not just the logic of a single or multiple destination point(s) along the train tracks especially since the same destination point can be arrived at from an almost innumerable number of routes or train tracks.. ( ie Mach??s principle does not tell you how to get to the conclusion it only tells you that you could have gotten there in one of two ways but there is left a whole thought train/ process for picking one or the other routes as well as the direction of the route itself.).... You and the others are quite capable of making the necessary and logical arguments for any given mechanics or combination or mechanics ( destination points/ conclusions) within the various thought processes themselves ( routes the tracks take)...I am just thinking out loud now and trying to reach greater clarity in the explanations......I hope . Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx> wrote: Paul, Allen, Kudos on now typing in a single case, color and font style??. Paragraph breaks still need some work J 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