[geocentrism] Re: Allens logic.
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:56:35 +0100
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
1.. 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
Other related posts:
