[geocentrism] Re: Allens logic.
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
In dfecene of Aleln's wtirtnig, wilhe it is a ltlite dfcuilit, it can
crtianelny be raed and udnretoosd wtih a ltilte eofrft. ;-)
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Jack,
The biggest problem is this is a government computer. I can't install on this
workstation when and what I want to..firewall thingy....... and I don't use
outlook express for my email post either....sorry. I'll try to make my post
easy as pie :-)
Allen
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Allen,
Because I don't have 'MS Office' I don't get the use of their spell checker
that works on Outlook Express. The fact that you don't either I assume means
you don't use 'MS Word', is that correct? I have just found this one and it
appears to be free! http://www.dynawares.com/spell.htm
and it is for MS Word if you have it. However your problem is the same
problem I had - no spell checker for Outlook Express. Try Googling 'free
outlook express spell checker' and see what comes up. I had to buy one called
'ABC Spell for Outlook Express'
http://email.about.com/od/outlookexpressaddons/gr/abcspell_for_oe.htm
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Allens logic.
I don?t mind. Yes, I have a spell checker but it is totally worthless
here..ergggh!@? Sometimes, I have to transfer my email to a external hard drive
take it to another computer write then go back to the other computer to send
and the format sometimes gets screwy, which usually frustrates me even more
especially when i don?t have the time or am doing three or four things at once.
"....." is a pause in writing. The point is to stress and get the reader to
pause for a sec right there before reading on any further...... a period just
cannot do that.......and "i" is just lower case I sometime my shift key does
not activate the caps ( probably cause i go too fast most times) as for the
structure that is really the only difference I use that "....." a lot. Although
it is more informal it is not unknown in fact it is quite
popular.........hey.....are all you people really old fogies ? LOL :-)
Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Allen,
I hope you don't mind me asking, but do you have a spell checker and why do
you use '.... ' and 'i' instead of 'I' so often? It can be quite difficult at
times to follow your thinking and reasoning due to the unusual structure, or
lack of structure (grammar) in your sentences.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 4:38 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Allens logic.
I could have ginen you a biblical answer but you would not have accepted that
either...even though the issue here is one of reality not poularity..if you
claim the word of God reality then what and who are you arguing with and if you
calim that is not relevant becuse most people dont "feel" or belive"..well what
has that got to do with reality?......think about this phil...i have no vested
intrest in this particular discustion..but you obviously do....so belive
whatever you like ...Pilat asked "what is truth"...phil ask "what is correct
thought" by definiton of the terms phil you asked the same question ..and the
reason you did is becuse you have the same mindset.........LOL
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen, thats the first
time I have read completely one of your posts, and not in blue ink either. Not
only that, but the sentence construction was acceptable. See how short and
meaningfull gets you further than long winded deliveries . dont get me wrong, I
have always defended spelling errors and gramatical typo's in these sorts of
dialogues.. But I always re-read and reconstruct, sometimes 3 times before
posting. Except tonight as i consume my 5th pint, and I know how desperate you
are for my reply.. LOL . ... Now here is my analytical response in your blue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:31 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Allens logic.
For sure when you are shown "correct thought" two things happen
You understand it but you cant & don?t know how to argue meaningfully
against it
But you are being subjective. You assume "correct thought" to yourself,
claiming infallibility. I did not ask you to tell me how I react to what you
declare as correct. I asked you what is correct thought, and why you infallibly
believe it to be correct. (No Holy Ghost authority here please) Correct =
infallibly true.
2. It has one of two effects ....... You see it, swallow your pride,
accept it and progress OR you just get mad/ scoff at it and make excuses for
why you don?t have to accept it and you digress.
This is emotional, has nothing to do with the question. If it is what you
believe, then is this what you do? If you do the former or the latter, either
or both could still be incorrect.
If you do not know what an electron is, then you cannot have correct thinking
about why it is. And even if you do know what it is, you still cannot know why
it is what it is, with certainty. Meaning correctly.
?.no one Philip will have to tell you when you experience that?and if you
stay here long enough you will experience it too.J
I'm learning every day Allen, here and elsewhere. Outside of supernatural
faith, and restricted to pure science which denies philosophy, I have long
realised that , other than simple mathmatical equations, excluding the math
add-ons of quantum and relativity physics,
NOTHING IS CERTAINLY CORRECT.
Philip.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What is "correct" thought Allen?
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Allens logic.
Phil,
You state "you are arguing this point outside of the rules of this debate" ..
First: Regner asked for my 5 reasons that "support geocentrism" I did that, I
gave him mine not yours, and certainly not his.......They are valid &
"relevant" reasons/ facts that support geocentristic view point/ theory. I
challenge you to demonstrate not merely assert otherwise. I will let him
concede or dispute this issue further if he likes. However, i will make some
further points on this issue, very painfully obvious to everyone here if this
"sillyness" persits.
Second:. You obviously missed my last post #1& 2 are facts and reasons and
the are relevant for the "reasons? I gave. They are my reasons not yours! logic
is intrinsic to correct thought not "how you see it". It is not based on
ethnicity or race or region or socioeconomic background..what in the world are
you protesting?.... The fact and as long as you address this issue this way is
the very reason you will never be abel to prove or disprove anything.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Allen what might
appear as logic or logical to you, does not appear to be logical to me. Just as
what appeared logical to Aristotle, in no way appears logical to me..And I am
in no way comparing you to Aristotle.
In a game of musical chairs, it is logical to me that the chairs do not move
and that it is the people who move around the circle.
Modernists in an attempt to explain holes flowing in a semiconductor, twist
logic, (my logic) to infer that in the game of musical chairs, it is the empty
chair that moves around the circle.
So your argument to be based upon logic or observation, is as useless as
Bernies, when in desperation concerning the ship flowing in a current he came
back with I would know the ship was moving by the wind blowing in my hair.....
Goodness Gracious me......
Philip.
Allen you are argueing this point outside of the rules of this debate... Let
Regner take those points proffered, and when he finalises them, we can begin
the debate on all points.. When you ramble on with so many words, none will
read it.. surely you know the value of concise short reasoning, just one point
at a time.. But who am I to talk... but I do try..
Please. plm
----- Original Message -----
From: Allen Daves
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:24 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
Regner,
Good, I think we might be able to begin to get somewhere now...
You stated: You also know that I have written so many times before, that I
will collate
all the sets of 5 points that you guys submit, and then I'll address the 5
top-scorers, one by one. I repeat, I have not begun to address the title
of this thread "Is geocentrism supported by facts?" - I'll do that when you
have submitted your points, which seems to be more complicated than I had
thought.
1. Ok good, we can wait for that. However, you are still missing the most
fundamental reason that I support geocnetrism. The most fundamental reason is
that there is only one logical path of deduction that can be demonstrated. #5
is about the logic itslef used to reach the conclusion. That is what point #5
states. That is the most fundamental reason individual data sets (observations
and experience) may led us to one direction or the other but in and of
themselves they are meaningless without some logical path to incorporate them
in. You see, I argue LOGIC OBSERVATION & EXPERIENCE (LO&E) not just Observation
and Experience alone. The most fundamental reason for geocentrism is that
Geocentrisim is a logical deduction where A-centrism is not a logical
deduction...point #5 makes that point, drives it home and leaves no
ambiguity..... If you don?t like # 5 that is your problem, but to state "Your
point 5 is a summary if the consequences if 2-4 are true, which meansit is not a
point in itself. Your point 1 is irrelevant here, since it is not in support
of a geocentric Universe." On the contrary, you can?t validate any conclusion
based on facts by ignoring the logic employed to evaluate those facts...!? I
don?t accept geocentricity because of 1,2,3or 4 as individual facts alone, I
accept geocentric it because of what #5 demonstrates (LOGIC properly applied to
a set of facts) based on those individual facts analyzed together in logic. It
is not just a summary, it is the logical path that brings us to geocentricity
and eliminates A-centricity. I laid out in a simplistic outline of a logical
proof for geocenticity. Again you miss it...You asked for " 5 most fundamental
reasons that your theory is correct. "....A logical conclusion based on data
(individual facts/ evidence; points 1,2,3&4) is the single best reason in the
world to support any given position.? ( not just O&E but LO&E) It is that proof
that I base and argue Geocentricity on. Those 5
points point to and demonstrate only one logical path (the Geocentric
conclusion)....# 5 is not irrelevant, it is part of the logical path of
deduction that brings us to whatever conclusion we arrive at, in terms of
earths motion or not. It is this path the A-centric v Geocentric logical path
that is in question and in fact the heart of this very discussion... If you
wish to ignore point #5 that is your problem. I say your problem because to
ignore the logical path where by one reaches their conclusion(s), based on a
set of data, is not a very "scientific" way of evaluating anything?( not just
O&E but LO&E!) If you wish to ignore the logic of the paths of how we all
reached our various conclusions, not just the individual facts that those paths
and conclusions are built upon, then there is absolutely no point to this
discussion in the first place. You can just make any list of 1,2,3,4,5 claim
you are right,( the reasons don?t even have to have any relevance to any
conclusion or logical path, because we have decided to ignore that little
tid-bit) I can do the same and claim i am right, and then we can all go home..?
2.You stated here.........." You cite me as saying ``"I can't figure out"
[sic]thoes 5 points...''
which is disingenuous as I actually wrote: "I can't figure out which words
make up a sentence"..You still miss the point..if you cant figure out which
words make up a sentence then how in the world did you "deduce" my conclusions
& or my mind set? Your either mistaken in your conclusion about me when you
said that "You have a closed mind" or you were exaggerating you "inability" to
make out my sentences.
In my second post to you, I did not write anything different in those 5
points, I only quoted excepts of myself ? If you could make out "the essance
"of what I said,( you did, otherwise, you could not have "deduced" my mind set
based on my how i view motion. How were you ever able to deduce anything about
my comments on motion if you did not figure out the the sentences even as poor
as the sentence strutcure may have been) then what was the relevance of your
point#1 to begin with? That I display poor penmanship at times?.....ok...?
......as for ."I could still do with a lot less of your unsubstantiated
non-sense about me.". .............." unsubstantiated"???....... I was quoting
your own comments, not mine?.... I was not disingenuous, I?m suggesting you
were.
Allen
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen Daves,
Thank you for your reply.
This was a lot more coherent, e.g., I could recognize sentence structure.
I'll accept your points
2. No attempts to measure a motion of the Earth has succeeded
3. Observed distributions and redial velocities (red-shifts) of astronomical
objects are centered on the Earth
4. No observed yearly motion of stars around ecliptic N/S-poles.
Please correct any misinterpretation I might have made.
Your point 5 is a summary if the consequences if 2-4 are true, which means
it is not a point in itself. Your point 1 is irrelevant here, since it
is not in support of a geocentric Universe.
You still don't read what I actually write. The two points that didn't
do your case any good, were MY two points: 1) your rambling, 2) your closed
mind. You cite me as saying ``"I can't figure out" [sic]thoes 5 points...''
which is disingenuous as I actually wrote: "I can't figure out which words
make up a sentence". I could still do with a lot less of your unsubstantiated
non-sense about me.
You also know that I have written so many times before, that I will collate
all the sets of 5 points that you guys submit, and then I'll address the 5
top-scorers, one by one. I repeat, I have not begun to address the title
of this thread "Is geocentrism supported by facts?" - I'll do that when you
have submitted your points, which seems to be more complicated than I had
thought.
Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Allen Daves :
> Regner,
> In your first post you requested the following main items.....
>
> 1...Please keep your replies short, precise and concise.
> I don't have oceans of time, and neither, I suspect, do you.
> 2) References to scripture does not count as scientific evidence
> and cannot be used as support of a scientific theory.
> 3) The most basic observations in regards to the movements in the
> Solar system is the movements of the Sun, stars, the Moon, the
> planets, etc. That they move across the sky cannot in itself be
> taken as evidence for or against the geocentric theory.
>
> In regards to the Solar system we don't know a priori which is the case - is
> the Earth orbitingand revolving or is it stationary. So let's find out.
> I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the
> 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct.
> And please adhere
> to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that later.
> I replied with the following..i'll abbreviate here ...so as not to
> "confuse" you....(note: these are verbatim quotes of my response to your
> request)
>
> 1......thus the burden of proof for any motion is on those who claim motion
> for the earth, not on those who claim there is no proof of motion. since as
> you just did that since "In regards to the Solar system we don't know a
> priori which is the case" or we have no ordinary or intrinsic experience/
> knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did not make the car/ universe)
>
> 2. All attempts to prove motion have come up short & or non existent......
> 3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show
> concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth ......
> 4. .....The relative motion of the stars nightly produce an observable
> pattern ( nightly star trails)....However, annually around the north
> secondary Northern annual axis of rotation there is no observable pattern
> that can or has ever been demonstrated to coincided with that supposed
> motion....
> 5. 1, 2 ,3 &4 being true thus there is only left to us logically
> evidentiary "proof" ( as so far as anything can be proven) that the earth is
>
> A.the center of the universe and
> B.Has no demonstratable motion, ..............
> This can be and is the only logically conclusion that can be made (A&B)
> with the available observation and experience, ...........
> Further....You specifically requested......."- and don't go into much
> detail - we can do that later." Your "reply" to the "5 reasons" you asked for
> , you stated that you were unable to comprehend.?.....you referred them as
> "rambling" These are about as simple of statements as one can make.
> The additional commentary in my original posting assumed you had a certain
> level of understanding, both scientifically, historically and or logicaly, on
> this issue, that obviously you do not. This is the whole point of the
> discussion. ( where "the ruber meets the road" Geocentriciy v A-centricity in
> terms of relativity, Logic Observation and Experiance [LOE]etc...)
>
> You could have argued or replied even to Point #1 with something like:
> If it is true that we cannot assume earth to be in motion then we cannot
> assume the earth to be at rest. ..but you did not because you were not
> capable of understandingit and or the significance of that stament? If you
> are going to engage in a discussion seriously and intelligently, you should
> at least understand the significance of the basic premises underlying the
> issues and discussion itself. Apparently you wish to ignore those...!?
> If you had bothered to reply meaningfully, I could have replied somthing as
> follows....
>
> This is the point you miss, you cannot base any argument for earths
> supposed motion on assumptions. The very definition of motion is based on
> that human observation and experience (on this "absolute frame" or Just this
> "inertial frame") , defines for us and we can demonstrate the definitions of
> real and relative motion. We can also observe not just the mechanical action
> but certain other measurable effects to our human bodies of real and
> retaliative motion in our ordinary world. In our everyday ordinary world
> experience we can make the distinction between real and relative motion, our
> definition of motion real or otherwise is based on that experience (which is
> an experience that we have, not merely something we imagine)....We do not
> experience any effects in the earth??s supposed motions about the universe
> that we experience in our ordinary world ,that our very definitions of real
> and relative motions are based on. Thus, we can only make claim to the
> logical conclusion
> that since we do not experience motion thus
> 1. We can make no claims of the motion of the earth
> 2. Regardless of what the reality ultimately is, the only logical
> conclusion that we can make about some supposed earth motion, is that there
> is no evidential motion.we are only using what we have, ( lack of evidence
> for motion)
> not what we do not have.(we do not have some inherent knowledge/proof/
> model that tells us that everything must be "interpreted" so as to preclude
> real absolute motion measured against the earth as the ARF because we already
> know that there is no absolute motion all motion is relative to any given
> "inertial frame").
> However, it is not an assumption to start with what you have not with what
> you do not have. That is only logical, and has nothing to do with which one
> is reality and thus nothing to do with assumptions about reality. This is
> true regardless of whether or not you accept only "inertial frames" or an
> "absolute frame". cause we only have ordinary experience to proceeded
> from.......
>
> But alas, you did not. In- fact you did reply to any of the points. You
> only restated your posion, by claiming my points did not help me..?? Again
> WOW, that determination is the point of this discusion is is not? (To
> logicaly determine the geocentric postion to be sound or not).. You stated
> "I can't figure out" thoes 5 points...???? Further, since you could not
> comprehend those 5 points, from that "lack of comprehension" you then
> proceeded to "deduce" that "You have a closed mind"....wow! You could not
> even "begin" to grasp those 5 points but you were able to deduce my whole
> mind set from those same 5 points...WOW again!!!..Why that is indeed an
> incredible feat of Intellectual prowess.......!?
>
> Then, you were offered a comprehensive compilation of evidence against
> A-centricity and for Geocentricity. You stated "that would be a wasted
> effort"....? I don?t see anything in your remarks demonstrating any real
> interest in this discussion at all.. Please prove me wrong. If you don't
> agree ( logically or scientifically) with one of those 5 reasons, ( that you
> asked for) then make that known and please explain your objection(s) to them.
> Otherwise, (to quote you:) "you are rambling immensely and writing a lot of
> unsubstantiated non-sense abuot me and about modern science. If you carry on
> in this way, I'll deem you unable to participate in a civilized, scientific
> discussion, and I will ignore your posts. "
>
> Again quoting you, "IF we could finally get this discussion going"
>
> Allen Daves
>
> From: Regner Trampedach
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:00:23 +0200
>
> I deduce two points from your E-mail 1) Your are rambling and I can't figure
> out which words make up a sentence. Please adhere to my rule #1. 2) You
> have a closed mind, in that you don't recognize the two possible
> explanations of seeing something move; Either the observer moves, or the
> observed moves. In science we cannot afford such a closed mind - Nature
> has repeatedly outperformed human imagination. Neither of the two points
> does your case any good. Neither of your 5 reasons have been included yet,
> as I can't decipher them. Please write a clear summary if you want to
> proceed. Regards, Regner Trampedach
>
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007
2:31 PM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007
2:31 PM
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007
2:31 PM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
