[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:04:12 -0400
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,
Allen said:
?the same destination point can be arrived at from an almost innumerable
number of routes or train tracks..?
Yes, so an effect (observed cosmic properties) can have multiple causes
? a
valid logical principle. Finding one cause shows necessity, not sufficiency.
But HC folks say that Newton?s laws are the ONLY cause that explains
the
effect. If Newton?s law of gravity explains the cosmos, then the aether can
?t. This is the logical error- denial of multiple causation. This error
exists even before HC is shown to be false.
In logical terms Allen is sustaining this principle => insufficiency of
a
single cause.
Note: In terms of the 2 syllogisms below, if both GC and HC are true,
then
AC is true.
But since HC is false/invalid, AC is also! Ah, the power of logical
thinking?
In terms of the apt train metaphor, HC and AC have been derailed ?
what a
devastating logical train wreck for modernists.
Stay on the right tracks, Allen.
Robert
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
Other related posts:
