[geocentrism] Re: Integrity in science
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:34:30 +0000 (GMT)
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Header -- I've tried to send this to geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx four times.
Now trying again.
Paul D
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 20 December, 2007 1:22:01 PM
Subject: Re: Integrity in science
Allen D
I was wondering if you were well but this post indicates that you are. Can I
then expect a response soon on the pre and post loss_of_primary sidereal period
of the Moon in another thread?
I can always tell when you see yourself as not standing on firm ground.There is
the urgent outpouring of words showing elevated lack of organisation of course,
but more telling is the phraseology -- circular fallacies; without assuming it
is true first; neither does even logic support; was made in the first place; I
don’t have to show -- etc. And of course you laugh a lot more -- LOL = 7 in
this post. I'll bet you don't play poker seriously.
I've inserted a few comments in this <colour>
Paul D
PS Would you, as a favour to us all, discipline your editor into retaining
apostrophies and not substituting "’"?
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to think
it is just them against orthodoxy."
Paul, you talk as is HC was a proven fact <Oh? Where have I said that?> or that
you had any facts external of just your faith <Now here I have commented. Once
I became aware of the narrow value that you et al place on 'faith', I have been
careful to avoid use of this word and I have explained several times why I
follow this course.> in others interpretations of them that HC were
true!?....LOL...... You can’t prove HC theory neither can Regner! If he could
he would be more famous the Einstein or Hawking himself. ..In fact for every HC
piece of evidence, that same "evidence" shows GC at face value. <I can't help
wondering then, why you didn't list just five of them when asked a long time
ago.> And as of yet you nor anyone else has given us a reason to interpret it
other then "what you see is what you get", except that it could and it is more
"modest".....LOL...That is objective criteria!!!?? LOL...your & Regner’s
"modesty" <Oh? Where have I said that?>
is a feeling not a scientific observation, certainly not objective data!..Give
me break!.. Regner may not like it but at the end of the day "modesty" is the
criteria that the most knowledgeable proponents of HC admit to for the only
"proof" (correct interpretation of data) of HC.!?...and my theory (GC) it is
NOT A THEORY just takes the facts as is...but you call a odd ball by
interpreting facts with nothing more then just your imaginations and
"modesty"!?.....LOL...You need to take a hard look at your self. <I do that
each day while shaving. It is an efficient use of time.> You dont make any
sense and neither do any of your arguments. <I understand your bias.> HC does
not have the stamp of observation anywhere on it without reinterpreting
observations <It is not necessary to reinterpret observations in order to
determine the Moon's sidereal period -- WYSIWYG!> with imaginations and
"modesty"? .....There is less actual evidence for HC then for GC. <Oh?
One wonders why then that the list of five arguments in support of geocentrism
from each supporter is even now unfilled.> There is no Evidence for HC
whatsoever without first evoking a circular fallacies about how you think the
kinematics of the universe work. <F = ma and all that follows convince me.> I
find Regner’s comments about "humbleness" totaly humorous.
"* Calling humbleness apologetic is pretty weird.> > * On the other hand, it is
probably a good idea for them to discredit> > humbleness, since insisting that
we humans are the whole reason for> > this Universe, is decidedly not humble."
How does he define modesty and what objective criterial does he and Hawking use
to make that opinion? Regner is right about one thing though, modesty is not
apologetic but immodesty is, HC is not based on modesty it is based on getting
rid of God...How does a non centered universe more modest!?
Regner gos on to say "But that is philosophy - let's get back to science, shall
we?"
I say great! Regner you and Paul and everyone else in the HC camp stop
supporting the use of your philosophical humbleness <see above> as an objective
justification for why and how your interpretations of the facts are more
objective then just taking them all at face value. but you cant do that if you
did you would have no observation or experience to support your case. On the
other hand if you do not stop doing that then it is you not GC folk who are
using Philosophy and religion! This is particularly true when the only
consistency in all of the is observations and experiments at face value all
show the earth at the center motionless .....! This cannot be said of all the
excuse for why the earth is not the center!?. ..except ......"it is more
modest"....LOL
In fact it is not modest at all! The whole purpose was and is not science or
based on objective data in observation or experience at all, but rather to
explain everything naturally absent of God..<What is/are your source(s) for
this statement? Not the observations which give rise to your presumption but
knowledge of this purpose.>...Well if there is a God, I don’t see how he would
see it as Modest at all...LOL..:-D. Since we have not been able to prove God
does not exist to claim modesty as the champion of your cause is not only
foolish, but quite arrogant. ( the exact opposite of Humbleness)..LOL..who you
trying to kidd..yourself?...I dont buy it, and neither does even logic support
your assertion!?
That is why the politics is not just important but everyt;hing when it comes to
data that can have multiple interpritations. To say that is it not is a
fairytale dreamland. To understand how a conclusion was reached that could have
multiple possibilities/ interpretations you must understand what the criteria
for the decision was made in the first place particularly when you took a
conclusion that demands a model that is other then what you see or can prove!?.
All is not just facts, if it were then you would have to accept a GC universe,
it is the only conclusion you can draw from any and all available facts period.
I don’t have to show any other facts then the ones HC purports to be HC proof,
because they don’t even remotely show HC without assuming it is true first.
....................
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
