[geocentrism] Re: airplane flights and the atmosphere
- From: "Gary L. Shelton" <GaryLShelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:54:12 -0500
Dr. Jones,
Thank you for your comments on my post. I would like to bat a few back to you
again. I'll begin with your words on my airplane hypothesis.
Firstly, is your position stating deference for "some reference point at rest
relative to both". This is indeed a tried and true argument. It certainly can
be used to make a case FOR geocentricity being at least as satisfactory an
explanation for stellar events as the heliocentric concept. The late Fred
Hoyle, a heliocentrist, has often been quoted by us geocentrists, when he says
pretty much the same thing, that both worldviews explain observable phenomena
equally well.
So I concede that we can never "stand outside the physical universe and look
in", and so can therefore never OBSERVE the truth of either system. One is
left to what he believes, more or less, as nothing is provable by direct
observation. I note that the same applies to Creationism/Evolution. Mr. Gish
of ICR will tell you every time that neither one of those worldviews qualifies
as a "valid scientific theory" because neither one is observable or
replicatable in the lab.
But having acknowledge direct observation as king, it seems to me that we
geocentrists have trapped ourselves in mediocrity. At first the reliance upon
this direct observation notion was probably welcome, a plateau of academic
respectability achieved and truly undeniable. Now, however, we seem to be
stuck because the other side is just as valid as we are under this
"observability" criteria. The way it looks to me, we have satisfied ourselves
"with the scraps from Longshanks' table and forgotten our god-given right to
something better", to quote Braveheart. We have made our case for geocentrism
permanently trapped in a no-man's land of academia and other useless
meanderings of no seeming daily relevance to the public at large. Thus we
have shot ourselves in the proverbial foot by not grasping what is plainly
there. Namely, easily understandable and visible evidence (bordering on
proof?) of our assertion that the world is indeed the way god described it in
the Bible.
The evidence I'm referring to here seems to me analogous to the Creationist
arguments against uniformitarianism in the La Brea Tar Pits in California, or
the painful lack of any true "geologic column" outside of the evolutionary
textbooks. Or it is similar to the Creationist argument against radiocarbon
dating which says that igneous rock from a volcanic eruption 200 years ago is
millions of years old.
The Creationists may not have a " valid scientific theory", but the evidence
they present screams to the rooftops to be heard. "Proof" is satisfied in all
but the deaf.
Respectfully, Dr. Jones, what relevance does any 3rd reference point have to
the basic fact at hand? Can you explain why if an airplane moves from Point A
to Point B 500 miles away in one hour, that it matters where this fact is
observed from, be it from Mars, Alpha Centauri, or outside the firmament? It
is still the same fact, isn't it? Irregardless of which direction it flies,
the position of the airplane over the earth will change by 500 miles in one
hour's flight time. As I said previously, if this were not true, a whole lot
of fare-paying passengers would be mighty upset.
Does my airplane hypothesis qualify as a "valid scientific theory"? No, it
does not, if direct observation is the litmus test. No man will ever step foot
high enough to see the true relationship of the earth to the heavens.
Nevertheless, the evidence my notion gives screams loudly to be heard. It is
the kind of graspable evidence, I say, that takes our geocentric argument out
of academia and puts it squarely in the interest and reach of the public at
large.
Am I naive? Probably. I've been accused of such. Am I a dreamer? I'd like
to think so. I'd like to think that a future exists where everyone understands
the earth is god's footstool and isn't going anywhere until the day of the
Lord's fierce anger. (Isaiah 13:13).
----------------------
As far as your comments, Dr. Jones, on my atmosphere hypothesis, my responses
to that are next. I really made three separate points with the same
information. Those points were: 1) I asked why we see the air move daily so if
it is always turning with the earth? 2) I asked what the mechanism was which
the h-people claimed held the atmosphere to the earth? and 3) I asked how
could I displace the air as a human walking through it -- including breathing
it -- if the earth couldn't move free of the pesky air as they both supposedly
turned?
I must say I'm confused that you could say that my 3rd point was "excellent",
when you commented that my 1st point was so observed only because of "the
relative differences caused by wind speed, on top of the en mass movement of
the atmosphere with the World." Dr. Jones, if you are saying that the wind/air
moves separate on the earth from the "en mass movement of the atmosphere", then
why is my 3rd point "excellent"? If one believes the air can both turn with
and not turn with the earth simultaneously, then the logical problem I brought
up with the fact that the atmosphere supposedly turns with the earth, yet we
humans can displace the air as we move and breathe, does not exist.
I maintain that it doesn't seem logical to assume this free-roaming atmosphere
that we can plainly see each day somehow at the same time sticks to the earth
sufficiently so that it turns "en mass" with the supposedly turning earth.
What kind of mechanism would be able to perform that trick? Gravity is an
equal opportunity force for everyone and everything. Air is a mighty valuable
commodity, but can it both stick to and not stick to the earth at the same
time?
Thank you for reading this rebuttal, Dr. Jones.
Sincerely,
Gary Shelton
Other related posts:
