[geocentrism] Re: Comment made by Geocentrism critic

  • From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:46:01 -0800

Quality reply, Allen.
 


-----Original Message-----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:43:37 -0800 (PST)
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Comment made by Geocentrism critic

Thus, all the efforts and experiments done pertaining to relative verse absolute motion….ever heard of  sagnac, Michelson Morley and Michelson Gale et al….….it works no matter how many frames of fererence you attempt to create or take away....or imagine….the point is there is a difference between absolute and relative motion…..The point of reference is whatever is out there that orbits wrt the earth  at 23h56min4sec…coz that is not the rotational rate of the earth….ummmmmmmm

 

All  accelerations, at least ones produce in any experiment or lab can be detected….and yet the earth’s ever changing accelerations cannot…umm  ....It does no good to appeal to theories that are dependent on the very conclusions they try to show as being true.... That is not science that is called a circular fallacy, make believe and fables for educated men.…

 

The fact you have a blindfold on and can’t see the physical perimeter of the car does not mean you can't detect the cars motion.......Don’t assume the very thing you are trying to determine one way or the other ........ to say there is no point of reference is to beg the question because again all motions and accelerations in any ref frame can and are detected....…in fact the only ones that are claimed to be undetectable are the very ones used to make the argument that there is no point of reference ...Ge wiz then, the fact you can't see my imaginary freinds, proves they are invisable!?..And the fact you can't see the air you breath, proves it does not exist!?….That is not science, that is called wishful thinking......

--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Comment made by Geocentrism critic
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 8:20 AM

 



--- On Mon, 12/1/08, Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Comment made by Geocentrism critic
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Monday, December 1, 2008, 6:31 AM

Comment made by Geocentrism critic:
 
 In order to prove or disprove this time-wasting theory you have to prove a point of reference. Since there is not actual point of reference anywhere, when it comes to the totality of space, one can say that any object is the center of the universe.

  Place yourself in space, and then tell me what is the center-point? Unless you can show that the universe has walls; has an end (which would then become a point of reference) you cannot show what is or isn't the center-point.

Other related posts: