[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:13:44 +0000 (GMT)
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 – 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 – 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.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
Other related posts:
