[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:00:39 +0000 (GMT)

Philip M
I know you get up around six so I only have an hour to make some quick 
responses in purple before going to bed.
Because Paul Walorski, unconditionally believed that the earth orbited the sun, 
he presumed that as the MM experiment was inconclusive, and that there was 
therefore no aether. Michelson concluded the same thing.
For the same reason, same presumption of truth.
I mean, if you can show that an aether is needed for such propogation -- and 
thus far you cannot -- you might have a point. 
Thats a double speak standard Paul. No explanation has been satisfactorily 
demonstrated that wave motion does not need a medium.. Quite the contrary. 
There are two beliefs.. niether provable, but a medium is the most logical on 
the evidence of explaining wave motion. That is as may be, but there is no good 
reason to propose a solution to your problem and at the same time carelessly 
dispose of 400 years of well verified physics and theory as a consequence. 
After all, if the Bible made references to the Earth rotating eastward to meet 
the Sun, we wouldn't be arguing this matter. That there is no other logical 
explanation is evidenced by your own, 
Isn't it more appropriate to simply seek another answer to the question of how 
and why EMR propogates? 
Why look for complication, [ My point exactly! ] where the simple answer well 
tried is already available.. And I might ask, more " appropriate" for whom and 
for what? Do we then only take on research that is appropriate? Philip please 
try to be a bit more generous in your judgement about which word I use. Surely 
by now you understand that I don't use trickey word choices to try to sink you?
Oh of course I forgot.. It is not "appropriate" for modern science to allow 
random supernatural properties into the equation because random is not 
quantifiable. .. That does not make them untrue though does it. Well as I've 
remarked before, I don't care to ride in an aeroplane whose design process 
included random properties, supernatural or otherwise.
I'm confident that if a real possibility had been 'swept under the rug' by the 
principal investigators, there were scores of capable contemporaries who were 
not only ready but also willing to jump up and down while proclaiming this 
subterfuge, in fact pretty much like you and your fellow believers are doing 
today. Indeed it is my impression that the theory of the aether and its 
presumed properties was not suddenly and violently, or even convincingly, 
snuffed out. It died slowly as do all discredited ideas.
This appears as an emotive rather than a rational rsponse. . I never said 
anything had been swept under the rug. .. Yet you accuse us of doing so. Yes I 
do. I don't know how you could pretend otherwise. Conspiracy theory -- which 
consists very largely of accusations of sweeping things under carpets are 
standard fare on this forum. Please don't ask me to go looking -- I'm sure you 
can remember many such instances if you are honest. How can you say with any 
confidence that the aether has been discredited? Quite a few of your capable 
contemporaries would beg to differ. Sorry -- I'm skeptical of that.
Here again, (if you can momentarily dispense with the insistence on the 
heliocentric position), because of the failure to detect a solar orbit, and 
given such failure opens up a possibility of a non rotating planet, then how 
can there be a positive aether flow with a 24 hour cycle? if the world is not 
rotating. Philip I'm afraid that your customary eloquence has deserted you 
here. I really don't know what it is that you are saying. OK I've tried harder. 
There is no first order reason linking rotation with revolution. And Michelson 
admitted that he had not detected an aether flow. Same for subsequent 
investigators. Positive? Don't know -- what is that and how is it different 
from negative flow? Perhaps after I chase up your references this will all make 
more sense.
Paul, I was almost certain when I wrote/read it myself, that you would not know 
what I was saying.. Its a matter of discernment, a mechanism I mention 
elsewhere. But if you follow and express the punctuation, it should be clear 
enough, given the context. But then you exclude Millers and others evidence. 
Yet to be pursued.
Later experiments by Miller did establish an anistropy of light ...In your 
emotive attack you ignored this. which has been shown elsewhere, that this 
anistropy has ben absolutely verified on modern equipment. If not an aether , 
then what ? Something more appropriate perhaps? 
Adelaide University page which used modern interferometry to "confirm" Millers 
results.] Would you give me the reference to these results again -- I don't 
recall what that might be and I certainly have not committed them to memory.
Would it not have been more appropriate and reasonable for you to have asked 
for this in the beginning, before making all the irrational comments above. I 
will have a search, my files are almost as difficult as the internet to 
But Faraday towards the end was at the point of questioning a moving earth when 
his earth conduction experiment failed to duplicate his spinning disk dynamo. . 
I think that Clarke's First Law may be invoked here.
Arthur C. Clarke formulated the following three "laws" of prediction:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, 
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he 
is very probably wrong. 
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little 
way past them into the impossible. 
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 
I do not see how the third First law! law applies here. In any case, I never 
had much respect for the science fiction efforts of Clark. He was certainly no 
Asimov. Yet I also have great difficulty with , Isaac Asimov wrote a corollary 
to Clarke's First Law, stating 
"When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by 
distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor 
and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, 
probably right." I'd forgotten that!!!
but deep thought reveals much.. take the current popularity on man made hot 
The following I wrote , remembering an earlier remark of yours, regarding an 
article I posted. You said, "as soon as I saw the words 'free energy' I lost 
interest in the article" 
That is an entirely different way to the common approach of "its not even worth 
looking at because I know it is impossible." Carried to the second degree, this 
attitude would immobilise you --Perhaps, but better to be immobilised in 
humility than to be arrogant in pride, rewards are not the driving motivation 
you would have to check everything you say against everything that you've ever 
said and then you'd have to check that you know what every word you used means 
and then you'd have to check that what every word you used to chech every word 
that you used still meant what you thought it meant ... There comes a time when 
you have to show a little trust. That aside, my impression is that you seem to 
be more concerned with the laws of science than most here. But that is the 
essence of humility, which you have just indicated as being of no worth. You 
ask for trust.. Trust must be entirely placed in God, and even here with 
reservation as to where when and who
 is God. But to trust in man, especially the men of science, is like trusting 
in every horse in a race to win.. I'm sorry Philip but I dissagree with you 
here at a fundamental level. Every time you pass through a busy intersection 
with the green light, you are trusting those at right angles to not run a red 
light. We all trust others every day. If you don't, you would be afraid to step 
outside. On the other hand, to stay inside is to trust the builder of your 
house. And if you don't trust, you will eventually give offense.
I am firmly convinced today, that it was when the aether became a threat to 
heliocentrism, and Einstein's universe, that it had to go, and as it remains a 
threat to the copernican theory of the universe, throwing God and the Bible 
back into the discussion, it will never be accepted by that segment of the 
scientific community. I'm not aware that a demonstrated aether is the threat 
you suggest either then or now. Explanation? Paul D 
Paul you do miss a lot. Probably subconscious rejection. Jack does that 
whenever the word Catholic appears. 
But I said before, that at the turn of the century when PhD included philosophy 
of religion as a science, the aether was an acceptable , even necessary 
phenomena. A study of the history of revolution, and the 
anti-clerical/religious of the same era, the movement of the so called free 
thinkers, (a communist ideal) resulted in a divide in science, to exclude the 
supernatural. Have no doubt, the early rationalists in science had a deep 
hatred of anything religious. The aether smells of the "spirit" . some even 
postulated it was the realm of God and the spirits, be they angels or devils or 
just ghosts. Well 'then', some of those who sought change may have felt 
threatened, but today? I don't think so.
That smell still sticks with the rationalists. You see it as a threat to your 
own comfort zone. So much so that today you insist I must seek another 
explanation to explain wave motion properties of Radio waves, which is 
virtually impossible, because it would be a contradiction in terms as well as 
reality. No. The weight of evidence has convinced most people of the reality of 
the Copernicus/Kepler/Newton model. If an aether and this system cannot 
co-exist, then CKN has precedence UNLESS you can demonstrate that the aether 
exists AND you have an alternative cosmology which stands the same rigorous 
testing which the CKN system has passed.
Paul D

Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.

Other related posts: