[geocentrism] Re: Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 17:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Wiait just one minuet!..Regner asked for 5 reasons...I gave them to him all 5
within 24 hours i sent them numberd 1 to 5 in order of presidence.....he
ignored all but one and then even when so far as to contridict himself / his
position wrt my first reason. Later he did finaly got around to adressing one
of the others with Suginis with MM but only in the sence that he wrote coments
...but.....i rather belive that he is still studying that issue, otherwise folk
are just calling the kettle black & is does not jusity any sympathy for that
cause........ since then i have given him 3 other very related issues......The
only one "pulling teeth" here is the GU side I know i have been pulling
teeth..........making statments that are contidications in terms & or
inconsistent with MS and caliming that "all is well" doest not constitute
meanigfull discussions...or a serious effort or even a debate....... lets get
the who's who is pulling the teeth here
strait....
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 2:06:17 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Fw: Re: Proof of heliocentrism
----- 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:
