for crying out loud I meant leads .....this spell/grammer check is about useless.... if I had time to proof read I wouldn't need it! Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Philip,. Theories take prescience over others based on Observation and experience that is "Science" 101 AKA the "Scientific method".....It is just that HC has no Observation or experience without assuming AC is true first that is why it is not a logically valid path to pursue...If experiments and observations had been made from other frames of reference that did show that all frames are equal that would be one thing but the only experiments every conducted do not show that it can only be imagined as true and what?s worse it is trumped up as being the most plausible...Philip that makes no sense whatsoever if you are going to support a theory as logical or more plausible then at least in Science you are supposed to go where the evidence Leeds you not where you imagine the evidence could be going....how can this be so hard to understand?........This concept is not only understood by MS it is even stated as a demand of MS..... the thing is they just don?t practice it, all I am doing is showing you that they don?t and how you can know and see that. philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: But Allen you do not allow any theoretical construct s because they are mere imagined possibilities for an explanation. If you are allowed to imagine a theory based upon what you see, so also must I and anyone else be allowed to imagine alternatives. Theories are not facts, as I have repeatedly told Paul. and you cannot demand that your theory is to take precedence over any other. Philip. ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:31 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (no subject) Trial & error is useful for finding things that work. Or even conducting experimentations..... but the issue here is theoretical constructs of how or why it works and the logical paths for discovery of that issue, not the fact that sagnac or other inferometers do in fact work and it was not know before hand that they would or do. I don?t have a problem with trial and error most of what we have is from that but trial and error dose not address the issue and certainly does not prove a theoretical construct nor does it ascertain the proof of why something works that was found by trail and error. Trial and error only give you a shortcut if you happen to stumble across one to the work itself not the how or why it works unless you by other trial and error seek to discover that. Even then you still only have the observations and experience available to you for making or deducing conclusions you cannot beg the questions to prove the very questions you are begging and claim it logically valid conclusion(s). ,................ To conduct any observation or experiment that it is designed to indicate a motion or a position such that it does indeed indicate that observably, to go on and make a conclusion that while it is true here it is only true here but not anywhere else even though we have not tested that without a having performed it anywhere else or an observational reason for such a statement is not logically valid... Therefore even if it were true there is no logically valid thought process based on LOE that can be claimed for having reached such a conclusion. Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: DIV { MARGIN: 0px } Allen D You basic position seems to me to be that formal logic is the only method of resolving a proposition, or that failing to include its use, will result in failure. This leads to the ridiculous position of grown men sitting around wasting their time debating how many teeth a horse has and seriously expecting that the matter might be satisfactorily resolved. Logic is a useful tool, but it is by no means the only tool. Trial and error for instance works. It requires no skills in logic, maths, expression or a hundred other skills. But though it is inefficient, none the less, it works. And there are many other ways to resolve propositions. Now you could make a giant advance in your understanding of life, the universe and everything if you would give a simple answer to Philip's question -- are you standing on world A or world B? This is a proposition which does not require the use of abstruse esoteric formal logic, or complex maths, or a Shakespearean command of English. It does however require a desire to arrive at a resolution. Give it a try. Paul D PS I'm not deliberately dodging the issues you've raised -- we can return to those. What I'm trying to do is to get you to see that this rarefied logical approach you've used on this forum for the whole of the time I've been here -- simply isn't working. It may work among others who share your approach, but it isn't working here. The aphorism concerning cats and the manner of skinning them, is relevant. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com --------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 21/03/2007 7:52 AM