1. me originaly in black 2 Philip's response 3 my latest reply in blue None of those things you keep appealing to (gravity inertia)define how or the why they (gravity inertia) work the way they do..... but those things(gravity inertia) keep getting explained and justified by the HC/AC construct Allen Absolutely not! You are failing to see my point, and what you say here, is a misconstruction of my point. If you believe the above then your case completely fails. That's exactly what you keep doing read your last post you mentioned those not me......otherwise there is no observation for HC or that makes HC plausable if so please tell us what it is...external of just imagination. "those things(gravity inertia) keep getting explained and justified by the HC/AC" This is not true.. Gravity and inertia have nothing to do with and are not influenced by cosmology. We may use them to explain cosmology, but they existed and had to be explained and justified long before cosmology was thought of . We had the horse before the cart. Gravity: the attraction between two masses. Demonstrated in the laboratory by having two masses suspended in a vacuum jar. Later experiment taken outside and showing the deviation of a plumb bob hanging down the face of a cliff towards the cliff. Nothing to do with planetary motions... How does this indicate HC mechanics? It does not imply anything except things attract it does not even tell you what casue that effect so how does this relate to the plausability of HC..? Inertia..flywheels , and merrygorounds likewise.... When as a child beside the camp fire, I swung the billy full of boiling tea over my head with out spilling a drop, I would have known, had I been enclined to think about it, just how a satellite would stay in orbit. And later as a space enthusiast I supported and accepted the theory of orbitting space stations, knowing they would work, and withstood the ridicule of the world who treated it as nonsense dreams. This would have been the case, even if the world was the centre, and the cosmos rotated around it. There is nothing in O& E that you have mentioned thus far that could even remotly suggest that it is not..while there is plenty that dose suggest it........The principles did not need heliocentrism to be true. Heliocentrism was a natural deduction from the principles already demonstrated. Realy? ..What priciples?...You just got through saying . and i quote."This is not true.. Gravity and inertia have nothing to do with and are not influenced by cosmology.We may use them to explain cosmology, but they existed and had to be explained and justified long before cosmology was thought of " Justified how and by what ......That is the questions you are begging.....I did NOT imagine the sun was stationary. Doesn?t matter without O& E you can't claim to have logicaly deduced the plausibility of any other construct imagiantion, theroy or otherwise..... sure you can imagine some other possibility just as you can with that airplane in the sky..... but the difference is plausibility based on LO&E not just imagining it....... simply imagining it does not make it plausible........ I KNEW it was holding on to a lot of billys full of tea, as they swung around it, just as old billy moon was held to the earth. I knew the calculations would have to show that the sun was a very heavy Mass to do that.. No imagination here, seeing as you prefer deduction. Knowing what I knew as "reasonable deductive facts", this IS a reasonable deduction. In fact it would take a lot of imagination, more like fantasy, to consider geocentrism as an option. You keep saying that but that is the question you keep begging. You ,as of yet have failed to demonstrate that HC/AC is even plausible without invoking circular fallacies with how mechanics could be if you assume that what you imagine is true rather then just sticking to what you actually observe/experience and not go beyond that, because that is all you have to build a logical case for plausibility in any case....... .. ..where i keep trying to point out that you only have GC observation and experience available to you..!? Again to suggest that there is HC/AC O& E can only be plausible if you assume that it is true first then interpret everything as an illusion because it could be an illusion and thus the most plausible....you still don?t tell us why the fact that it could be an illusion is the most reasonable explanation for O&E that are no different then the O&E of planes, UFO?s or birds. If the O& E are identical then how is the conclusion logically justified as being different without assuming something that you do not observe even though you can imagine it...!? Yes a theoretical model that can demonstrate the possibility of HC but I can do the same thing an show how it is the birds, planes and UFO?S and the clouds for that matter are all stationary......SO WHAT....!? You cant just assert that those observations and experience are fundamentally different for the other objects in the sky and call it the most logically plausible answer.........gravity inertia and any other laws only have meaning within the construct you choose because they don?t tell you why or how they work or what cause them... .if you do not know that you cant claim they demonstrate anything except that is how you observe things to behave. It does not demonstrate how I imagine it works or works...Give me a break! This is the reson we have to search for and prove supranormal possibilities, like the aether. "supranormal" ?...... The aether can be logicaly deduced from experimentaly observed effects on light ..O&E...? Philip PS We don't need to talk about frames of reference. keep the discussion on basic mechanics.. Well gee..if we take that approach we dont even need to talk about mechanis in order to discover the reasons why and what the mechanics are either ? Frames of refernce are what the whole HC/AC myth is built on to explain why the sun only looks like it is moving accross the sky but it is realy an illusion.....Gee wiz what relevant O&E do you want to talk about in this discovery process?...this is about as basic as it gets in terms of HC/AC V GC......Lets just There is only one reference point.. Its here. That?s my point! and if we hold to what you suggest here then H/AC can't appeal to multiple RF...... if it cannot ................well even they would admit the whole HC/AC thing would fall apart real quick............If you want to stick to that great! ....I'll even let Phil Platt and or Einstien himself make the case........I suggest you read Mach's "The principle of mechanics" and "Principles of Relativity" the whole point is to define Multiple equivalent RF so as to, among other things, make light Isotropic in the universe so as to explain the Sagnac, MM, MG, whcih were and are "real" O&E, away.. .....RFs are not a side issue they are the issue........ Relative v Absolute....... Your methodology is damaging to the cause, because it lacks credible thought processing and smacks of flat earther reasoning. plm No because you can actually O&E earths roundness......you can't actually O&E the universes isotropic nature...although you can imagine that .... PS I noticed the color rearranging you attempted.........................it's ok i fixed it :)