[no subject]

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 &lt;From <A href=3D"mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx=
" __doClobber__=3D"true">sungenis@xxxxxxx</A> Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007&gt; 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&nbsp;shrink when an object&nb=
sp;moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases,&nbsp;just so=20=
you can&nbsp;explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your pr=
ivilege, but&nbsp;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.&nbsp;<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&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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>
&nbsp;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 &lt;paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<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 &lt;From <A href=3D"mailto:sungenis@xxxxxxx=
">sungenis@xxxxxxx</A> Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007&gt; 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>&nbsp;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--

Other related posts: