[geocentrism] Re: GR
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:02:38 +1000
I think I do agree with you if I am reading you correctly Jack. I have worried
about it at times. The problem for me and you is that we may not know the
mathmatics where with astronomers calculate the movements and speed of
celestial bodies. Robert explained to us how the distance from the sun was
confirmed. I still do not have a clue what he was talking about. But I do have
faith in the geometry. In science only few things are certain. Such as the
internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees.
I do not think there is anything wrong with making logical assumptions if they
are based upon reasonable observation. For example it is reasonable from
observation to assume that the sun orbits the earth. Yet this does not make it
absolutely certain. Scientifically that is. We know it to be true from faith,
but that is not allowed into the scientific debate. It is allowed as an
assumption to be proved, just like any other assumption.
To give the atheist his due,
It is also reasonable to assume that the planets are similar in weight and
composition to our earth. We may take as close to true the calculated mass of
the earth. Thus taking the reasonable assumptions I outligned, and observing
that these planets do orbit the sun, it is not unreasonable to accept the
calculations of the weight of the sun, as would be necessary to allow for the
observed orbits of these planets. under proven newtonian laws of motion. It
would be unreasonable to say that these laws do not apply off world.
Also we must carefully evaluate our language, when we say things like I believe
such and such. Quite often we merely affirm an opinion, rather than making an
act of faith. We must not confuse for example presumption with assumptions.
"Assuming this to be true", is merely making a conditional requirement for a
hypotheses to be evaluated. It is not a statement of truth. One might say,
assuming this to be a lie, and proceed from there...
NEVERTHELESS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN HOW THEY DEALT WITH THE AETHER
EXPERIMENT.
From their point of view, because of the nil result they preferred to believe
that there was no aether.
From our point of view we preferred to believe that it proved the earth was not
moving.
Yet the real truth of the matter could be that the aether does exist, but that
it is not a physical entity which can be detected like a river through which we
flow or pass, or that light waves will bend. To say that it is, is like saying
"assuming this to be true".
They cannot presume it to be true. Which they did of course and which we do as
well. My third point could just as well be true. And so the MM experiment
cannot prove anything, which is what I said months ago...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: Jack Lewis ; geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Mike
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:22 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] GR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>; <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [geocentrism] Re: NASA and the Moon
>
>
> Indeed one of its assumptions is that there is
> > no such thing as a truely stationary coordinate system privalaged above
> > any other (acentrism). All evidence that supports GR therefore supports
> > it acentric assumption.
Dear Mike,
I meant to add this to my previous posting but forgot. You will notice the
use of the word *believe* where I felt it was necessary.
When Michaelson and Morley performed their interferometer experiment they
were trying to prove that the earth moved through the aether. OK so far?
Because they got a nil result (no light interference fringes) they concluded
that the earth did not move. However further interferometer experiments were
set up to try and explain why they got a nil result or failure as some
scientists preferred to call it. This was because everyone *believed* the
Earth did move and they therefore could not accept the results.
This, as you probably know, caused quite a stir and upset not a few
scientists. The preferred conclusion of the experiments was, not that the
Earth was stationary, but that there was no aether even though it had been
given a 'constant' by Max Plank. This aether was *believed* to exist because
it was *believed* light needed a medium in which to travel.
Then along came Einstein and did away with the aether with his strange
relativity theories and all because nobody wanted to *believe* that the
Earth looked as though it was stationary.
So when you start quoting GR etc. I have to take a sceptical view because of
the level of belief that is needed.
I will be happy to consider anything on this subject that does not contain
any guesswork.
I would like to know if there is anyone else on this forum who shares my
view?
Jack
Other related posts:
