[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:25:45 +0000 (GMT)
Robert B
I've inserted five comments here -- they are numbered and they appear between
groups of angle brackets thus -
n. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comments -- specific items are referenced.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
===============================================
Only the geosync sat and the Moon have the right GC periods. Please indicate
what you think the GPS and LEO orbits to be (or the formula to do the
calculation) and I'll make changes. References to other sources indicating that
your assertion is a generally held belief would add confidence to the exercise.
1.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In your single line comment which follows, beginning "Has the research ...", I
interpret this to mean that there is only one reference, to whit, GWW. My
statement above to which your response is directed, asked for a " ... generally
held belief ... ". In case you managed to misunderstand this simple statement,
" ... generally held belief ... " in this context would normally mean
'commentators other than yourself' and preferably a significant number of them.
A single co-author hardly qualifies.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Has the research on GC aether been finished? Apparently not. The reference is
GWW.
How hard can it be to compute satellite periods for an immobile Earth?? Not
hard at all -- it is the same as for a rotating Earth. The Earth's rotation is
not a parameter.
2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In your response immediately below beginning "I see.", I suggest that you don't
see. First, while the Earth and its satellites can well be described as a
system, I suspect your usage has a wider meaning here than my simple two body
illustration -- the Earth and one satellite at a time. In my illustration, I
have plotted the period against the orbit radius for a number of radii, in
order to demonstrate the smooth progression of relationships which results from
these calculations. For some reason I can't fathom, you clouded the issue with
your question immediately above beginning "How hard ...", which introduces the
matter of the Earth being immobile. It is entirely irrelevant whether the Earth
rotates or not, or revolves or not (except as discussed in my exchange with
Martin S). Upon this framework, I sought to show that the GC position of the
Moon's period being 24h 52m and GeoStat satellite orbital periods being
infinite are, in contrast, chaotic. The LEO and GPS satelites
I'm sure I've seen described by the GC position as being as I depicted them,
but as you indicated that in your opinion this is not so, I invited you to
correct me. However you have not defended your opinion in any way except to
make another pitch for Gee Whiz Willie.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I see. The GC system has the same period as the HC system, though one is
rotating and the other not. See Aristotle below and GWW.
Or was the Earth assumed to be both accelerating and not accelerating? When you
made this statement in an earlier post, I assumed it was made unwisely in a fit
of pique and I simply passed over it, but now that you have repeated it, it
would seem you really believe it is a valid point. I have indicated previously
that your comments show a very poor understanding of basic physics (btw -- you
still haven't favoured us with any information about your PhD or the subject of
your doctoral thesis -- is it something of which you are not proud?)
No problemo,senor. CV is in GWW. 3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet Another Pitch (YAP)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
and comments by Philip M bear me out in this specific matter.
4. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the section delineated with '+++++' which follows, the sentence beginning
"In mathematics ..." is a quote from -- I guess, Wikipaedia. Had you read
carefully enough you would have seen the line immediately above in heavy black
which I have pasted in for you. Had you also been a tad more observant, you
would have noticed that the "vermilion sentence" made its first and only
appearance prior to your mention of it, in the post from Philip M "From philip
madsen Tue Mar 20 22:05:32 2007" with the subject "Pauls debate" thus it could
only have been present by Philip M's hand. So your statement in parenthesis
should read "( Wikipadeia in vermilion, Philip M's comments in black.)"
(Emphasis added). And his support " ... in this specific matter." (see
immediately above) see His post "Rotating mass" "From philip madsen Wed Mar 21
21:36:15 2007". In passing, I note that "In mathematics, probabilities always
lie between zero and one." (Emphasis added). This would tend to indicate
that certainties and impossibilities are never suggested.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
+++++
Wiki once again shows the confusion and uncertainty....
In mathematics, probabilities always lie between zero and one. An impossible
event has a probability of 0, and a certain event has a probability of 1.
(However, events of probability zero are not necessarily impossible, and those
of probability one are not always certain.)
What a contradiction of terms!
( Paul D in vermilion, Philip M’s comments in black)
+++++
See Aristotle….. again
In any event, and I guess your weakness in physics shows up here again, the
Earth's acceleration (revolution) does not influence the period of its
satellites either.
5. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the comment following, beginning "In GS ... " you again raise a matter which
is both irrelevant and of your insinuation. See your post "Question begging"
"From Robert Bennett Wed Mar 21 03:02:00 2007" where this first appears.
What do you hope to gain by this tactic?
Following that, I must thank you for your scholarly disertations on Aristotle's
utterances. While the substance is perhaps profound, it is hardly news, but
knowing its precise origin will no doubt be of immense benefit to me as I go
forward to do battle with life's obstacles.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In GS the Earth is immobile, yet it has an acceleration due to revolution? See
Aristotle….. again.
A contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more
propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two
conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.
Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something
that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
Robert and non-Robert
===================================================================
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
