[geocentrism] Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 22:06:17 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Paul
I fully understand your position and sympathise with you. Regner was invited to
join this forum to discuss the merits of geocentrism v heliocentrism. He
started by asking us to give 5 examples for a geocentric model. However I did
counsel at the begining, because of past experience, that we should only deal
with one issue at a time until it either disproved, proved or agreed to be
unresolved. otherwise digression quickly takes over. The Roberts' Bennett and
Sungenis offered just one to start with - the interferometer experiments
arguing that if Regner can deal with this then 4 others would follow. Celestial
poles got everyone bogged down for quite a long time until it was decided that
it wasn't helpful to either of the protagonist's postions. Likewise with the
latest stellar parallax discussion. A current side issue appears to be what
causes the tides. Meanwhile the interferometer experiments are still a very hot
issue but lying dormant. Regner was offered a free copy of GWW in which all the
information for geocentrism and against heliocentrism is thoroughly aired. I
think it churlish of Regner to turn down this offer especially when he has been
told by me that he doesn't have to read the whole book only the items that
attract his attention. He gets up tight when Robert 'cuts and pastes' parts of
his book in his defence. Why should Robert have to go through the bother of
rewriting his explanations?
As far as I'm concerned, I can see that this whole debate is going to get
absolutely nowhere. Nobody is likely to change their position either
scientifically or theologically. Having said that Neville is the only one who
has changed his position on both counts. That is why, to your consternation, I
suggested that if Regner and yourself are convinced of the truth of
heliocentrism, then we could quickly resolve all the arguments by a proof.
Since geocentrists cannot 'prove' their model (although the interferometer
experiments could go a long way to proving geocentrism) then it seems
reasonable to ask heliocentrists to prove their model. Honestly it would save a
great deal of time and you and Regner could then apply your time more
fruitfully elsewhere. If a heliocentric proof is not possible then, I would be
happy to unsubscribe myself from further debate since I believe that
geocentrism accords more with my belief in a creator and makes more sense.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 2:54 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism
Jack L
Regner came to this forum by invitation to debate helio/geo positions. He
asked for each of the intending participants to give their five best
propositions as to why geocentrism was king. There followed a lot of huffing
and puffing as to why heliocentrism was wrong to which I drew attention stating
that dissatisfaction with heliocentrism was not affirmation of geocentrism.
After some weeks -- or was it months? -- of coaxing, several members grudgingly
nominated up to five propositions.
Now you would have us return to sniping at heliocentrism?
What is the problem? Your position has been in existence for much longer than
Copernican model. As I remarked previously, I'd have thought that your greatest
problem would be in deciding which of the multitude of proofs available to you
that you would consider the most devastatingly convincing with which to
confound we poor confused, ignorant, lying heliocentrists.
Paul D
Other related posts:
