[geocentrism] Re: Regner concedes?

Philip,

With respect, and despite your trifold repetition posting, it is not Allen but yourself who misses the point, because you comment upon, "our inability to visualise why a camera will not detect which system is actually moving." In this comment you simply assert that the camera cannot detect something which you assume is there. But the camera could detect it, the reason it does not is because the second component of motion is not there. This second component of motion is NOT equivalent WITH RESPECT TO THE BACKGROUND STARS between heliocentric and geocentric models.

The camera does detect what is moving, that is the entire point. Regner, as far as I am aware, since I was away at the time, wanted some proof of geocentrism did he not? Here it is. One set of star trails predicted by geocentrism and two sets predicted by heliocentrism, for exactly the same reasons. What do we observe? One set. So which model is demonstrably wrong?

Uhmmm, difficult question.

What you are doing is quoting effects which are explainable in both systems. What we are doing is offering a proof of one system over another. Something which cannot be explained away in the heliocentric model or, if it can, Regner has not yet attempted to do it.

Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:02:19 +1000

Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said...
 
What you and miss is the fact "that newton does not pretend to know why they act the way they act. Newton does not know what the mechanical force is...he is only explaing it..his laws are descritptions of observation " 
 
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
 
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
 
Allen You seem to have missed that this is exactly what I said
 
And that is why I also said such has no bearing on the question..as regards Geocentrism being explainable within his "laws are exact descritptions of observation"  ..  and I also said, and will say it three times again,
 
"We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep running away from it? "  We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep running away from it? We have known about, and discussed this here for years, why do we keep running away from it?
 
You went into a long winded nothing that failed to eplain what is observed , namely the world reacts against a flywheel, and therefore must be moving according to all the known mechanical laws of science.. 
 
You seem to have missed what I also said, so I'll say again it three times..
In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system. In Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC systemIn Newtonian physics thats the proof of the HC system..
 
and
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate..  I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate..  I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
We need to fault Newtons laws and prove it, to win this debate..  I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that.
 
And you and me and all are not going to do that  by talking about illusions caused by our inability to visualise why a camera will not detect which system is actually moving..  Nor will we do that by repeating over and over that Newton is wrong, unless you can prove he is wrong and supply an acceptable alternative theory..   
 
I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. I'm hoping Robert with GWW can do that. 
 
Now please go back and DO  the flywheel experiment for an hour..  not think about it ... do it..   
 
Philip.
Get Free 5GB Email – Check out spam free email with many cool features!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!

Other related posts: