[geocentrism] Re: The honesty of scientists
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:20:32 +0100
Dear Jack,
Jack Lewis wrote:
>> A system of bodies moving relative to each other is one
>>dynamic system no matter how you choose to look at it or what
>>co-ordinates you use to model it.
>
> Explain this using my posting of the 3 models why they are all the same.
As you're the one making unconventional claims surely the onus is on you
to support it. But I'll try. Imagine making a little geostationary
clockwork model of just the sun, earth and moon with the sun going round
the earth daily and the moon going round the earth almost daily just as
observed from earth. Fix the earth to a stand and watch it run. Now
fix the sun to a stand instead and watch it run - voila! the
heliocentric model =)
> Well just follow my back to basic postings as and when they are posted. At
> the moment my first one is being contested by yourself and Alan. I responded
> to Alans comments and started again. That's what I have just done with you.
> So be patient, you'll see eventually what I'm getting at.
> Even if you do think I'm paranoid don't waste words on it it isn't helpful.
> I only disbelieve / question that which has assumptions as part of its
> authority.
Except for those from the bible though ;) You may be questioning
everything but you are completely unobjective. Why are you giving so
much thought to Neville Jones flawed logic when it is so easy to
demonstrate that it is flawed. Surely not because you are biased and
give him more credence than all the other scientists out there.
>>>Euclid isn't under attack by the way. He stated his assumptions and
>>worked from there. The fact that his fifth assumption may not hold for
>>the geometry of the universe we live in does not invalidate his work and
>>in fact his work is the basis for different geometries with a modified
>>fifth postulate.
>
> Well as I have been saying I am wary of postulates, they are having a habit
> of becoming talked into being an observed fact .
Of course they do, nothing can be proved without assumptions. The whole
point is to try to use as few as possible and only those which seem
obvious to everyone. When I say 2+2=4 I don't rattle off some speach
about my belief in zeno's postulates regarding the integers everytime.
I assume everyone else believes them too (even if they don't realize it).
What assumptions underlying science or maths do you actually doubt?
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
