[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: sungenis@xxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:40:03 -0500
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.
RS: Sure, Paul. Everyone in the world is just waiting with open arms to
consider the evidence for geocentrism because they are so "honest." If you
believe that, then you don't live in reality either.
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.
RS: They have been demonstrated, Paul, but no one wants to listen, because they
know what's at stake. If you think otherwise, then show us one proof of
heliocentrism that has been demonstrated in the last "500 years."
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.
RS: I can tell you haven't studied the issue, Paul, otherwise you wouldnt' make
such inept comments. F = ma supports geocentrism just as much as heliocentrism.
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.
RS: The "quasars" are what led people like Hawking to notice that the earth was
in the center of the universe, so I'm not "resorting" to any hammar cracking of
eggs. Maxwell said there was absolute space, the basis of geocentrism, and his
equations prove it. Einstein said no. You argue with them. As for Einstein, if
you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in
the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of
Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just assume answer it by
saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the earth isn't moving, and
I'm just as "scientific" as you for saying so.
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.
RS: If you're so high on science, then I suggest you read GWW and discover all
the well known scientists (even those who believe in heliocentrism) have said
that they can neither prove heliocentrism nor deny geocentrism. If you like
science, Paul, we're way ahead of you. I wouldn't have even entered this arena
unless I knew science was on my side.
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
RS: Granted, but we aren't talking about that, are we? We're talking about
whether you can prove heliocentrism and negate geocentrism. If you think you
can, I'm listening
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.
RS: Sticks and stones, Paul. If you have proof for heliocentrism, show it,
otherwise, I'm not interested in how much demagoguery you can sling out of the
Flat Earth society or elephants backs.
It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to think
it is just them against orthodoxy.
RS: Yes, and I always find it interesting whenever debates about geocentrism
come to the fore they are always answered by Flat Earth's and elephants instead
of showing the proofs of heliocentrism and the disproofs of geocentrism. I've
been through it many times, Paul. Don't waste my time with stone throwing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 1:13 pm
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
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
Other related posts:
