RT: So speculating on peoples motives is examining evidence? I don't really=20= care about peoples motives, social status, gender, hair-colour, whether some= body has found a quote that can fit into their world-view, etc., etc... RS: I wasn=E2=80=99t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what Hawking= =E2=80=99s motivations are =E2=80=93 to keep the earth out of the center of=20= the universe, despite the fact that the cosmological evidence shows him that= it best fits in the center, and that he has to concoct an alternate cosmolo= gy just so that he can keep the earth out of the center. And there are more=20= quotes from Hawking that say the same thing. If you would read the book, you= would see dozens of such motivations by today=E2=80=99s scientists to keep=20= the earth out of the center, in spite of the evidence before them. The reaso= n is simple. They know precisely what it means to have the earth in the cent= er =E2=80=93 it means that their whole career in science will be over and th= ey are going to admit that science took a wrong turn 500 years ago. But toda= y, a scientist can=E2=80=99t even express his doubt in evolution without los= ing his job. Can you imagine what academia would do if you, Regner Tem., sai= d the earth was standing still in space? You=E2=80=99d be picking up your la= st paycheck. If you come to this discussion believing that one=E2=80=99s phi= losophy, his religion, his commitments to the establishment, his upbringing,= etc., don=E2=80=99t effect how he views the evidence, then you=E2=80=99re n= ot living in reality.=20 This is precisely why I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment as my first= piece of evidence, since we are told there are at least two ways to interpr= et the results. If one is trying to keep the earth moving, one will interpre= t M/M Einstein=E2=80=99s way (and Einstein said so, by his own admission, an= d you can read his words in GWW. His motivation was to keep the earth moving= , even though the salient features of the experiment were suggesting that it= was not be moving). If you want the earth to remain still, you will interpr= et the results another way. As a scientist, you know as well as I do that IN= TERPRETATION of the experimental results is the crux of the issue. And since= interpretation is often a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity, then int= erpretations of experiments are always subject to scrutiny. What we are tryi= ng to say is (a) Einstein=E2=80=99s way of interpreting M/M not only avoids=20= Occam=E2=80=99s razor, it is, for all intents and purposes, absurd; and (b)=20= since a fixed earth is a valid, reasonable and scientifically supportable in= terpretation of M/M, then the science establishment has no right to teach th= at heliocentrism is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we=20= should have a voice in academia today. But the reason we aren=E2=80=99t allo= wed to have a voice is that there are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan,=20= Gould, Davies, and hundreds of others, who simply don=E2=80=99t want the pub= lic to know what the alternative interpretations are. I=E2=80=99m not making= this up, Regner. I have documented their motivations by their own printed w= ords, and that is precisely why I spent four years gathering quotes of their= "motivations" in GWW. There is no argument. They=E2=80=99ve told us what th= eir agenda is, and I suspect you have the same agenda.=20 RT: I care about the physical evidence. I have seen a few excerpts of your b= ooks, but, as I have said before, I don't have time to read the thousands of= pages. Since you wrote the book, you should be able to distill the key find= ings into a couple of challenges for me, and we can take the discussion from= there and get into all the details. That is what I would like to do, becaus= e I think it would be the most efficient.=20 Do you have objections to that? RS: Ok, you don=E2=80=99t have time, and I don=E2=80=99t have time. I=E2=80= =99m a busy man like you. I=E2=80=99ve got nine kids and three book deadline= s to meet, on top of coaching two basketball teams. The reason I gave you th= e Michelson-Morley experiment to explain first is that your answer will tell= us exactly how you approach this whole issue. I consider it a test for you,= Regner. I don=E2=80=99t know anything about you other than you came on boar= d this discussion group. Hence, not to accuse you now, but if I see you fudg= ing with the evidence of the first challenge I give you, I can safely assume= you=E2=80=99re going to do the same with the other four challenges I have,=20= and thus it=E2=80=99s not worth my time. I=E2=80=99ve been through this many= times before with naysayers, and I=E2=80=99ve been teaching for 35 years, e= nough to know when someone is just being obstinate and when someone really h= as solid objections. I want to see which one you are.=20 And practically speaking, if you=E2=80=99re involved in an intense discussio= n with Allen, and as you say below, "I am sorry that I don't have time to ta= ke on more than one discussion at a time, but that is how it is," then my su= ggestion is not to ask for more than you can handle by insisting that I give= you four challenges instead of one. Obviously, as is now the case with Alle= n, when you give your answer to the first challenge, I=E2=80=99m going to co= me back with questions and objections for you, and we are going to go round=20= and round on it until it is exhausted, which may take months. So why would w= e want to clog up the works with four other challenges that are going to req= uire the same intensity? It doesn=E2=80=99t make sense to me.=20 For the record, the other challenges I was thinking of giving you but held t= hem back in order to see what you would do with the first challenge, involve= such things as: (1) center of mass; (2) parallax and retrograde motion; (3)= centrifugal and Coriolis forces; (4)Arago, Hoek, Airy telescope results; (5= )Maxwell=E2=80=99s equations; (6)quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc; (7) the S= agnac experiment; (8)false proofs of relativity; (9) difficulties with a rot= ating and translating earth, and many other such issues.=20 But again, they are all superfluous if we can=E2=80=99t get to first base wi= th the first challenge. This is the most reasonable approach, and I hope you= will agree.=20 Robert Sungenis Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.=20 ________________________________________________________________________ More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.= aol.com ----------MB_8CA1096776C6DA0_F50_47E3_FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" <br> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 3px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"> <div>Robert S</div> <div>I truly despair when I read <From <A href=3D"mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx= " __doClobber__=3D"true">sungenis@xxxxxxx</A> Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007> t= his thread, and similar. (See below).<br> </div> <div><br> Firstly, the paranoia. It seems to be the first shot fired by those who can'= t get their views accepted by honest workers in the fields in question. <br> <br> RS: Sure, Paul. Everyone in the world is just waiting with open arms to cons= ider the evidence for geocentrism because they are so "honest." If you belie= ve that, then you don't live in reality either. <br> <br> <br> But worse, there is the flood of words which seem designed to attempt to smo= ther the discoveries of the past 500(?) years. These discoveries are open to= disproof by any who can demonstrate falsity. No one does, which leads to th= e possibility that no one can -- not because of ineptitude but because the d= isproof does not exist.</div> <div><br> RS: They have been demonstrated, Paul, but no one wants to listen, because t= hey know what's at stake. If you think otherwise, then show us one proof of=20= heliocentrism that has been demonstrated in the last "500 years."<br> <br> <br> If, instead of the flood of words, we were to be treated to a series of simp= le, testable geocentric hypotheses equivalent to F =3D ma and those which fl= ow from it, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Sun with all i= ts mass circles the tiny Earth then you'd have a prayer. It would also help=20= your case if you could explain how the enormous body of interlocking and mut= ually supporting knowledge of the physical functioning of the Solar System c= an be repeatedly demonstrated and yet be false.<br> <br> RS: I can tell you haven't studied the issue, Paul, otherwise you wouldnt' m= ake such inept comments. F =3D ma supports geocentrism just as much as helio= centrism.<br> </div> <div><br> However, I think the thing which bothers me most is resorting to Maxwell and= quasars and alleged false proofs of relativity. This is taking a steam hamm= er to crack an egg. If the Sun circles the Earth you should be able to show=20= it within the sphere encompassing the Solar System. My guess is that if the=20= universe ended at the Oort Cloud, eff would still equal em-ae and the Earth=20= would still circle the Sun.<br> </div> <div><br> RS: The "quasars" are what led people like Hawking to notice that the earth=20= was in the center of the universe, so I'm not "resorting" to any hammar crac= king of eggs. Maxwell said there was absolute space, the basis of geocentris= m, and his equations prove it. Einstein said no. You argue with them. As for= Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object&nb= sp;moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so=20= you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your pr= ivilege, but I'd just assume answer it by saying that mass, time and le= ngth stay the same and the earth isn't moving, and I'm just as "scientific"=20= as you for saying so. <br> <br> <br> I have two beautiful examples of how science triumphs. The first concerns Gr= egor J Mendel who first worked out the principles of inheritance (not money=20= but genes). He was an Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think - in an= y event he worked in isolation) who when he died, had his papers burned by h= is abbot because the abbot feared that this "knowledge", if widely available= , would be a threat to the church. Today his work is recognised and respecte= d because it has utility, ie -- it works.<br> <br> RS: If you're so high on science, then I suggest you read GWW and discover a= ll the well known scientists (even those who believe in heliocentrism)=20= have said that they can neither prove heliocentrism nor deny geocentrism. If= you like science, Paul, we're way ahead of you. I wouldn't have even entere= d this arena unless I knew science was on my side.<br> <br> </div> <div>The other is <FONT color=3D#008080></FONT>the disastrous effect of doct= rinal domination of science, in this case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet t= heory of Genetics" (as though ideology could influence truth, ie -- what is)= . The man the Soviets chose to back was named Lysenko. After 50 years(?) of=20= failure to demonstrate the truth of his claims, with the Soviet Union fallin= g further and further behind in this matter and the matters upon which this=20= false view of genetics bore, they had to reverse their position. His theory=20= did not have utility, it didn't work.<br> </div> <div><br> The point I'm making is that science is about discovery -- it is not about i= nvention. If you seek to disseminate the theory that in a gravity field the=20= pan with 900g in it will sink and the pan with 1000 g in it will rise, you w= ill forever be shown to be wrong.</div> <div>Paul D<br> </div> <div><br> RS: Granted, but we aren't talking about that, are we? We're talking about w= hether you can prove heliocentrism and negate geocentrism. If you think= you can, I'm listening<br> <br> <br> PS Almost missed this one. From your post below -</div> <DIR> <div>'...then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocent= rism is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have=20= a voice in academia today.'</div> </DIR> <div>Would you also give an equal voice to a flat Earth on four elephant's b= acks on a turtle's back in a really big puddle? The concave Earth? A flat ci= rcular Earth in the middle of a Tychonian system with the South Pole a reall= y high wall of ice at the edge? And all the other alternatives? I'm sure the= proponents of these alternative systems have explanations which they regard= as at least as valid as geocentrism and that if you get representation then= so should they.<br> </div> <div><br> RS: Sticks and stones, Paul. If you have proof for heliocentrism, show it, o= therwise, I'm not interested in how much demagoguery you can sling out of th= e Flat Earth society or elephants backs.<br> <br> <br> It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem=20= to think it is just them against orthodoxy.<br> <br> RS: Yes, and I always find it interesting whenever debates about geocentrism= come to the fore they are always answered by Flat Earth's and elephants ins= tead of showing the proofs of heliocentrism and the disproofs of geocentrism= . I've been through it many times, Paul. Don't waste my time with stone thro= wing. </div> </BLOCKQUOTE><br> <br> <br> -----Original Message-----<br> From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx><br> To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<br> Sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 1:13 pm<br> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science<br> <br> <div id=3DAOLMsgPart_2_892d3be5-2d5c-418d-b16a-ab5519356152> <STYLE type=3Dtext/css>#AOLMsgPart_2_892d3be5-2d5c-418d-b16a-ab5519356152 <!= -- DIV {margin:0px;} --></STYLE> <div style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> <div> <div>Robert S</div> <div>I truly despair when I read <From <A href=3D"mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx= ">sungenis@xxxxxxx</A> Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007> this thread, and similar= . (See below).</div> <div>Firstly, the paranoia. It seems to be the first shot fired by those who= can't get their views accepted by honest workers in the fields in question.= But worse, there is the flood of words which seem designed to attempt to sm= other the discoveries of the past 500(?) years. These discoveries are open t= o disproof by any who can demonstrate falsity. No one does, which leads to t= he possibility that no one can -- not because of ineptitude but because the=20= disproof does not exist.</div> <div>If, instead of the flood of words, we were to be treated to a series of= simple, testable geocentric hypotheses equivalent to F =3D ma and those whi= ch flow from it, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Sun with=20= all its mass circles the tiny Earth then you'd have a prayer. It would also=20= help your case if you could explain how the enormous body of interlocking an= d mutually supporting knowledge of the physical functioning of the Solar Sys= tem can be repeatedly demonstrated and yet be false.</div> <div>However, I think the thing which bothers me most is resorting to Maxwel= l and quasars and alleged false proofs of relativity. This is taking a steam= hammer to crack an egg. If the Sun circles the Earth you should be able to=20= show it within the sphere encompassing the Solar System. My guess is that if= the universe ended at the Oort Cloud, eff would still equal em-ae and the E= arth would still circle the Sun.</div> <div>I have two beautiful examples of how science triumphs. The first concer= ns Gregor J Mendel who first worked out the principles of inheritance (not m= oney but genes). He was an Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think -=20= in any event he worked in isolation) who when he died, had his papers burned= by his abbot because the abbot feared that this "knowledge", if widely avai= lable, would be a threat to the church. Today his work is recognised and res= pected because it has utility, ie -- it works.</div> <div>The other is <FONT color=3D#008080></FONT>the disastrous effect of doct= rinal domination of science, in this case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet t= heory of Genetics" (as though ideology could influence truth, ie -- what is)= . The man the Soviets chose to back was named Lysenko. After 50 years(?) of=20= failure to demonstrate the truth of his claims, with the Soviet Union fallin= g further and further behind in this matter and the matters upon which this=20= false view of genetics bore, they had to reverse their position. His theory=20= did not have utility, it didn't work.</div> <div>The point I'm making is that science is about discovery -- it is not ab= out invention. If you seek to disseminate the theory that in a gravity field= the pan with 900g in it will sink and the pan with 1000 g in it will rise,=20= you will forever be shown to be wrong.</div> <div>Paul D</div> <div>PS Almost missed this one. From your post below -</div> <DIR> <div>'...then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocent= rism is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have=20= a voice in academia today.'</div> </DIR> <div>Would you also give an equal voice to a flat Earth on four elephant's b= acks on a turtle's back in a really big puddle? The concave Earth? A flat ci= rcular Earth in the middle of a Tychonian system with the South Pole a reall= y high wall of ice at the edge? And all the other alternatives? I'm sure the= proponents of these alternative systems have explanations which they regard= as at least as valid as geocentrism and that if you get representation then= so should they.</div> <div> It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories=20= seem to think it is just them against orthodoxy.</div> <div><SPAN class=3Dunmark></SPAN>ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo= oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo</div> <div>From <A href=3D"mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx";>sungenis@xxxxxxx</A> Wed Dec 1= 9 14:05:43 2007 Re:Integrity in science.</div> <div>RT: So speculating on peoples motives is examining evidence? I don't re= ally care about peoples motives, social status, gender, hair-colour, whether= somebody has found a quote that can fit into their world-view, etc., etc...= <br> </div> <div>RS: I wasn=E2=80=99t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what Haw= king=E2=80=99s motivations are =E2=80=93 to keep the earth out of the center= of the universe, despite the fact that the cosmological evidence shows him=20= that it best fits in the center, and that he has to concoct an alternate cos= mology just so that he can keep the earth out of the center. And there are m= ore quotes from Hawking that say the same thing. If you would read the book,= you would see dozens of such motivations by today=E2=80=99s scientists to k= eep the earth out of the center, in spite of the evidence before them. The r= eason is simple. They know precisely what it means to have the earth in the=20= center =E2=80=93 it means that their whole career in science will be over an= d they are going to admit that science took a wrong turn 500 years ago. But=20= today, a scientist can=E2=80=99t even express his doubt in evolution without= losing his job. Can you imagine what academia would do if you, Regner Tem.,= said the earth was standing still in space? You=E2=80=99d be picking up you= r last paycheck. If you come to this discussion believing that one=E2=80=99s= philosophy, his religion, his commitments to the establishment, his upbring= ing, etc., don=E2=80=99t effect how he views the evidence, then you=E2=80= =99re not living in reality. </div> <div>This is precisely why I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment as my=20= first piece of evidence, since we are told there are at least two ways to in= terpret the results. If one is trying to keep the earth moving, one will int= erpret M/M Einstein=E2=80=99s way (and Einstein said so, by his own admissio= n, and you can read his words in GWW. His motivation was to keep the earth m= oving, even though the salient features of the experiment were suggesting th= at it was not be moving). If you want the earth to remain still, you will in= terpret the results another way. As a scientist, you know as well as I do th= at INTERPRETATION of the experimental results is the crux of the issue. And=20= since interpretation is often a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity, the= n interpretations of experiments are always subject to scrutiny. What we are= trying to say is (a) Einstein=E2=80=99s way of interpreting M/M not only av= oids Occam=E2=80=99s razor, it is, for all intents and purposes, absurd; and= (b) since a fixed earth is a valid, reasonable and scientifically supportab= le interpretation of M/M, then the science establishment has no right to tea= ch that heliocentrism is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Henc= e we should have a voice in academia today. But the reason we aren=E2=80=99t= allowed to have a voice is that there are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sa= gan, Gould, Davies, and hundreds of others, who simply don=E2=80=99t want th= e public to know what the alternative interpretations are. I=E2=80=99m not m= aking this up, Regner. I have documented their motivations by their own prin= ted words, and that is precisely why I spent four years gathering quotes of=20= their "motivations" in GWW. There is no argument. They=E2=80=99ve told us wh= at their agenda is, and I suspect you have the same agenda. <br> RT: I care about the physical evidence. I have seen a few excerpts of your b= ooks, but, as I have said before, I don't have time to read the thousands of= pages. Since you wrote the book, you should be able to distill the key find= ings into a couple of challenges for me, and we can take the discussion from= there and get into all the details. That is what I would like to do, becaus= e I think it would be the most efficient. </div> <div>Do you have objections to that?</div> <div>RS: Ok, you don=E2=80=99t have time, and I don=E2=80=99t have time. I= =E2=80=99m a busy man like you. I=E2=80=99ve got nine kids and three book de= adlines to meet, on top of coaching two basketball teams. The reason I gave=20= you the Michelson-Morley experiment to explain first is that your answer wil= l tell us exactly how you approach this whole issue. I consider it a test fo= r you, Regner. I don=E2=80=99t know anything about you other than you came o= n board this discussion group. Hence, not to accuse you now, but if I see yo= u fudging with the evidence of the first challenge I give you, I can safely=20= assume you=E2=80=99re going to do the same with the other four challenges I=20= have, and thus it=E2=80=99s not worth my time. I=E2=80=99ve been through thi= s many times before with naysayers, and I=E2=80=99ve been teaching for 35 ye= ars, enough to know when someone is just being obstinate and when someone re= ally has solid objections. I want to see which one you are. </div> <div>And practically speaking, if you=E2=80=99re involved in an intense disc= ussion with Allen, and as you say below, "I am sorry that I don't have time=20= to take on more than one discussion at a time, but that is how it is," then=20= my suggestion is not to ask for more than you can handle by insisting that I= give you four challenges instead of one. Obviously, as is now the case with= Allen, when you give your answer to the first challenge, I=E2=80=99m going=20= to come back with questions and objections for you, and we are going to go r= ound and round on it until it is exhausted, which may take months. So why wo= uld we want to clog up the works with four other challenges that are going t= o require the same intensity? It doesn=E2=80=99t make sense to me. </div> <div>For the record, the other challenges I was thinking of giving you but h= eld them back in order to see what you would do with the first challenge, in= volve such things as: (1) center of mass; (2) parallax and retrograde motion= ; (3) centrifugal and Coriolis forces; (4)Arago, Hoek, Airy telescope result= s; (5)Maxwell=E2=80=99s equations; (6)quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc; (7)=20= the Sagnac experiment; (8)false proofs of relativity; (9) difficulties with=20= a rotating and translating earth, and many other such issues. </div> <div>But again, they are all superfluous if we can=E2=80=99t get to first ba= se with the first challenge. This is the most reasonable approach, and I hop= e you will agree. </div> <div>Robert Sungenis<br> </div> <FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></div> </div> <br> <HR SIZE=3D1> Make the switch to the world's best email. <A href=3D"http://au.rd.yahoo.com= /mail/taglines/default_all/mail/spankey/*http://au.yahoo.com/worldsbestmail/= spankey/" target=3D_blank>Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now</A>. </div> <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_2_892d3be5-2d5c-418d-b16a-ab5519356152 --><div class= =3D"AOLPromoFooter"> <hr style=3D"margin-top:10px;" /> More new features than ever. Check out the new <a href=3D"http://o.aolcdn.c= om/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=3Daolcmp000500000000= 03" target=3D"_blank">AOL Mail</a>!<br/> </div> ----------MB_8CA1096776C6DA0_F50_47E3_FWM-M18.sysops.aol.com--