[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Integrity in science
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:50:47 -0800 (PST)
Purple...........
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 8:55:53 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Fw: Integrity in science
Third attempt -- more to go.
Paul D
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 20 December, 2007 1:22:01 PM
Subject: Re: Integrity in science
Allen D
I was wondering if you were well but this post indicates that you are. Can I
then expect a response soon on the pre and post loss_of_primary sidereal period
of the Moon in another thread?
I can always tell when you see yourself as not standing on firm ground.There is
the urgent outpouring of words showing elevated lack of organisation of course,
but more telling is the phraseology -- circular fallacies; without assuming it
is true first; neither does even logic support; was made in the first place; I
don’t have to show -- etc. And of course you laugh a lot more -- LOL = 7 in
this post. I'll bet you don't play poker seriously.
I've inserted a few comments in this <colour>
Paul D
PS Would you, as a favour to us all, discipline your editor into retaining
apostrophies and not substituting "’"?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to think
it is just them against orthodoxy."
Paul, you talk as is HC was a proven fact <Oh? Where have I said that?> "you
talk as"..? GC is oddball but HC is more objective..!?..please..HC is more
subjective by defintion......there are no WYSIWYG foundational observations for
HC the only observations that support HC are ones that are interpredted in a
specific light by first assuming HC is true??? You need this book bad.....you
dont know the history or the facts about HC or MS period.......I can recomend
it cause i knew this stuff before the book came out in fact i have had most of
the suff referenced in it in my personal library.............. or that you
had any facts external of just your faith <Now here I have commented. Once I
became aware of the narrow value that you et al place on 'faith', I have been
careful to avoid use of this word and I have explained several times why I
follow this course.> I'm looking at the value you place value on your
evidence.....it is by defintion a faith in
interpritiaon. in others interpretations of them that HC were
true!?....LOL...... You can’t prove HC theory neither can Regner! If he could
he would be more famous the Einstein or Hawking himself. ..In fact for every HC
piece of evidence, that same "evidence" shows GC at face value. <I can't help
wondering then, why you didn't list just five of them when asked a long time
ago.> I did and numbered them 1234&5.....And as of yet you nor anyone else has
given us a reason to interpret it other then "what you see is what you get",
except that it could and it is more "modest".....LOL...That is objective
criteria!!!?? LOL...your & Regner’s "modesty" <Oh? Where have I said that?>
HC states it and you support HC !? ......For you to personally state it or not
is not the issue. the issue is that is the bottom line reason for HC, and they
know it, apparently you don’’t???? Get the book if you dont have the time to
reasearch it out your self, ...:-) This philosophical ( ie modest and aesthetic
reasons) are accepted reasons for their proof of HC even by HC authorities...!?
The difference is they only broadcast that amongst themselves to the general
public they claim...certainty and proof........even they know they have no real
substantial or objective proof..!? you just don’’t really know what they say
because you don’’t know what they really believe...i do.....i knew it before
Robert wrote his book but Roberts book is the best place to start for the
novice or uninformed. You value that assessment if you did not you would not/
could not accept HC because HC is not WYSIWYG it is only a philosophical
determination of an
interpretation that is consistently inconsistent with the face value of the
data. Further there is no way to prove that interpretation is correct it is
only a philosophical choice ..you seem to think there is a objective reason for
HC that is why i laugh a lot.... you keep arguing in circle cause you don’’t
know what is a proven fact and what is a assumed fact in HC ..they don’’t
always make that clear particularly to the general public....
......is a feeling not a scientific observation, certainly not objective
data!..Give me break!.. Regner may not like it but at the end of the day
"modesty" is the criteria that the most knowledgeable proponents of HC admit to
for the only "proof" (correct interpretation of data) of HC.!?...and my theory
(GC) it is NOT A THEORY just takes the facts as is...but you call a odd ball by
interpreting facts with nothing more then just your imaginations and
"modesty"!?.....LOL...You need to take a hard look at your self. <I do that
each day while shaving. It is an efficient use of time.> You dont make any
sense and neither do any of your arguments. <I understand your bias.> I am
bias by defintion. However, it is also a fact by defintion......a subjective
term is not an objective reason....that is the botom line for HC you just dont
know the difference between the HC propaganda and the Facts.......HC does not
have the stamp of observation anywhere on it without
reinterpreting observations <It is not necessary to reinterpret observations
in order to determine the Moon's sidereal period -- WYSIWYG!> right! and as i
said it is the same now as it would be without the earth.. but again no one has
ever been to the moon, so certain assumtions would have to be made. That is not
a soldi foundation to begin the proof from...( start with what you have not
with what you do not have) we have the earths sidreal period. We can know that
and observe it if the moon disappeared then that would be the same relitive
effect if we were on the moon and the earth sudenly disapeared........( start
with what you have not with what you do not have)........with imaginations and
"modesty"? .....There is less actual evidence for HC then for GC. <Oh? One
wonders why then that the list of five arguments in support of geocentrism from
each supporter is even now unfilled.> Where have you been i posed 12345 over a
month ago and repeated them
they were all but one ignored and still are...?????There is no Evidence for HC
whatsoever without first evoking a circular fallacies about how you think the
kinematics of the universe work. <F = ma and all that follows convince me.> You
dont seem to know the diffference between a mathematical descritpion of effects
and the cause of effects....Thoes two things are not one and the same thing!? I
find Regner’s comments about "humbleness" totaly humorous.
"* Calling humbleness apologetic is pretty weird.> > * On the other hand, it is
probably a good idea for them to discredit> > humbleness, since insisting that
we humans are the whole reason for> > this Universe, is decidedly not humble."
How does he define modesty and what objective criterial does he and Hawking use
to make that opinion? Regner is right about one thing though, modesty is not
apologetic but immodesty is, HC is not based on modesty it is based on getting
rid of God...How does a non centered universe more modest!?
Regner gos on to say "But that is philosophy - let's get back to science, shall
we?"
I say great! Regner you and Paul and everyone else in the HC camp stop
supporting the use of your philosophical humbleness <see above> as an objective
justification for why and how your interpretations of the facts are more
objective then just taking them all at face value. but you cant do that if you
did you would have no observation or experience to support your case. On the
other hand if you do not stop doing that then it is you not GC folk who are
using Philosophy and religion! This is particularly true when the only
consistency in all of the is observations and experiments at face value all
show the earth at the center motionless .....! This cannot be said of all the
excuse for why the earth is not the center!?. ..except ......"it is more
modest"....LOL
In fact it is not modest at all! The whole purpose was and is not science or
based on objective data in observation or experience at all, but rather to
explain everything naturally absent of God..<What is/are your source(s) for
this statement? Numerous startig with Voltare himself.......Not the
observations which give rise to your presumption but knowledge of this
purpose.>..goodness get the book ( regner was offered it for free) do you want
me to rewrite the whole book .? if you were realy intersed i would think you
would be eager to get the book and "show it up for what it realy is"...? i
will have more to say on these things latter......................Well if there
is a God, I don’t see how he would see it as Modest at all...LOL..:-D. Since we
have not been able to prove God does not exist to claim modesty as the champion
of your cause is not only foolish, but quite arrogant. ( the exact opposite of
Humbleness)..LOL..who you trying to
kidd..yourself?...I dont buy it, and neither does even logic support your
assertion!?
That is why the politics is not just important but everyt;hing when it comes to
data that can have multiple interpritations. To say that is it not is a
fairytale dreamland. To understand how a conclusion was reached that could have
multiple possibilities/ interpretations you must understand what the criteria
for the decision was made in the first place particularly when you took a
conclusion that demands a model that is other then what you see or can prove!?.
All is not just facts, if it were then you would have to accept a GC universe,
it is the only conclusion you can draw from any and all available facts period.
I don’t have to show any other facts then the ones HC purports to be HC proof,
because they don’t even remotely show HC without assuming it is true first.
....................
dont worry Paul.....we are gona get you & Regner all the way down the rabbit
hole as fast as you are willing to travel...
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Robert S
I truly despair when I read <From sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007>
this thread, and similar. (See below).
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 smother
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 the
possibility that no one can -- not because of ineptitude but because the
disproof does not exist.
If, instead of the flood of words, we were to be treated to a series of simple,
testable geocentric hypotheses equivalent to F = ma and those which flow from
it, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Sun with all its mass
circles the tiny Earth then you'd have a prayer. It would also help your case
if you could explain how the enormous body of interlocking and mutually
supporting knowledge of the physical functioning of the Solar System can be
repeatedly demonstrated and yet be false.
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 hammer
to crack an egg. If the Sun circles the Earth you should be able to 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 Earth
would still circle the Sun.
I have two beautiful examples of how science triumphs. The first concerns
Gregor J Mendel who first worked out the principles of inheritance (not money
but genes). He was an Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think - 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 available,
would be a threat to the church. Today his work is recognised and respected
because it has utility, ie -- it works.
The other is the disastrous effect of doctrinal domination of science, in this
case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet theory 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 failure to demonstrate the truth of his
claims, with the Soviet Union falling further and further behind in this matter
and the matters upon which this false view of genetics bore, they had to
reverse their position. His theory did not have utility, it didn't work.
The point I'm making is that science is about discovery -- it is not about
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, you will
forever be shown to be wrong.
Paul D
PS Almost missed this one. From your post below -
'...then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocentrism is
correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have a voice in
academia today.'
Would you also give an equal voice to a flat Earth on four elephant's backs on
a turtle's back in a really big puddle? The concave Earth? A flat circular
Earth in the middle of a Tychonian system with the South Pole a really 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.
It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to think
it is just them against orthodoxy.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
From sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007 Re:Integrity in science.
RT: So speculating on peoples motives is examining evidence? I don't really
care about peoples motives, social status, gender, hair-colour, whether
somebody has found a quote that can fit into their world-view, etc., etc...
RS: I wasn’t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what Hawking’s
motivations are â€" to keep the earth out of the center of 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 cosmology just so that he
can keep the earth out of the center. And there are more quotes from Hawking
that say the same thing. If you would read the book, you would see dozens of
such motivations by today’s scientists to keep the earth out of the center,
in spite of the evidence before them. The reason is simple. They know precisely
what it means to have the earth in the center â€" it means that their whole
career in science will be over and they are going to admit that science took a
wrong turn 500 years ago. But today, a scientist can’t 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’d be picking up your
last paycheck. If you come to this discussion believing that one’s
philosophy, his religion, his commitments to the establishment, his upbringing,
etc., don’t effect how he views the evidence, then you’re not living in
reality.
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 interpret
the results. If one is trying to keep the earth moving, one will interpret M/M
Einstein’s way (and Einstein said so, by his own admission, and 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 interpret the results another
way. As a scientist, you know as well as I do that INTERPRETATION of the
experimental results is the crux of the issue. And since interpretation is
often a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity, then interpretations of
experiments are always subject to scrutiny. What we are trying to say is (a)
Einstein’s way of interpreting M/M not only avoids Occam’s razor, it is,
for all intents and purposes,
absurd; and (b) since a fixed earth is a valid, reasonable and scientifically
supportable interpretation of M/M, then the science establishment has no right
to teach that heliocentrism is correct, much less been scientifically proven.
Hence we should have a voice in academia today. But the reason we aren’t
allowed to have a voice is that there are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan,
Gould, Davies, and hundreds of others, who simply don’t want the public to
know what the alternative interpretations are. I’m not making this up,
Regner. I have documented their motivations by their own printed words, and
that is precisely why I spent four years gathering quotes of their
"motivations" in GWW. There is no argument. They’ve told us what their agenda
is, and I suspect you have the same agenda.
RT: I care about the physical evidence. I have seen a few excerpts of your
books, 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 findings
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, because I think
it would be the most efficient.
Do you have objections to that?
RS: Ok, you don’t have time, and I don’t have time. I’m a busy man like
you. I’ve got nine kids and three book deadlines to meet, on top of coaching
two basketball teams. The reason I gave you the 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’t know anything
about you other than you came on board this discussion group. Hence, not to
accuse you now, but if I see you fudging with the evidence of the first
challenge I give you, I can safely assume you’re going to do the same with
the other four challenges I have, and thus it’s not worth my time. I’ve
been through this many times before with naysayers, and I’ve been teaching
for 35 years, enough to know when someone is just being obstinate and when
someone really has solid objections. I want to see which one you are.
And practically speaking, if you’re involved in an intense discussion with
Allen, and as you say below, "I am sorry that I don't have time to take on more
than one discussion at a time, but that is how it is," then 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’m going to come back with
questions and objections for you, and we are going to go round and round on it
until it is exhausted, which may take months. So why would we want to clog up
the works with four other challenges that are going to require the same
intensity? It doesn’t make sense to me.
For the record, the other challenges I was thinking of giving you but held them
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’s equations; (6)quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc; (7) the Sagnac
experiment; (8)false proofs of relativity; (9) difficulties with a rotating and
translating earth, and many other such issues.
But again, they are all superfluous if we can’t get to first base with the
first challenge. This is the most reasonable approach, and I hope you will
agree.
Robert Sungenis
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
Other related posts:
