[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:39:08 +0200
Dear Philip Madsen
Your name sounds pretty Danish?
Your first point doesn't qualify in support of geocentrism.
Science is by no means democratic, but that doesn't mean that
a lack of main-stream support makes a theory correct. The
way you rephrased my question, makes your first point acceptable,
but I am not interested in that question. I am already spending
valuable time on this so you don't have to prove further to me
that I should give the issue attention.
I have summed up your other points into:
"There exists a measurable ether, ergo the Earth cannot be moving."
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the 5 most
> fundamental reasons that your theory is correct.
>
> Regards,
>
> Regner Trampedach
>
> Dear Dr. Regner Trampedach.
>
> Greetings from Australia.
>
>
> I will try to give 5 fundamental reasons why my theory has as much reason to
> be considered as possible, as that currently accepted by convention, on the
> basis that niether theory can be proven to be absolutely correct, and both
> are based upon acceptance of many other theories, but that both have equal
> right to a claim of probability.
>
> We have an alternative theory. It is based upon a belief system that is
> contrary to the belief system of established science, as demonstrated in the
> restriction imposed by your rule No. 2. But I have no need to use any
> evidence from scripture or religion.
>
> My fundamental reason in support of geocentrism is divided up as follows,
> with a concise explanation of my understanding of your term "correct" given
> at the end.
>
> 1. Consensus does not make any theory correct. The majority once believed
> that heavier than air machines would never fly. An alternative theory proved
> them wrong. Science cannot ligitimately reject the minority view.
>
> 2. Although most physical phenomena such as matter, inertia, gravity,
> magnetism, electrical charge, can be quantified, measured, formulated and
> used to advantage, none of these things have ever been explained physically
> as to how and why they exist or act as they do. Action at a distance in a
> vacuum being just one. Whether gravity is pull or push is another.
>
> 3. Following on from the last, action at a distance in a vacuum, in fact
> any force, is unexplained physically, except by using a mixture of
> corpuscular and wave mechanics in some instances. I see no rational
> satisfactory physical explanation offered anywhere that does not need a
> mechanism which is called the aether.
>
> 4. Conventional science has no basis for dispensing with the aether as non
> existent, when they have no idea of what it is or what it might be, given
> they do not believe in it as an entity to begin with. That it could not be
> detected, merely proves it was not a detectable fluid, which the earlier
> establishment wrongly assumed it to be. We claim it is a mechanism or
> property of three dimensional space. Perhaps a "time tunnel" between ajoining
> instances of time, if we accept space as being four dimensional, but whatever
> it really is, it cannot be rejected.
>
> 5. Logic requires one to accept that its existence is adequately
> demonstrated in the fact that it can store and hold energy in a vacuum. Bring
> the aether component back into the discussion, and geocentrism becomes an
> equal partner of philosophy, and possibly an answer to the workings of many
> other phenomena, especially why protons exhibit mass, gravity, and the
> inertia inherent to mass.
>
> Philip Madsen.
>
> hypothesize = to give a possible but not yet proved explanation for
> something
>
> proof =a fact or piece of information which shows that something exists or is
> true:
> true (REAL) =being what exists, rather than what was thought, intended or
> claimed:
> true (NOT FALSE)(especially of facts or statements) =right and not wrong;
>
> correct:
> correct = right and not wrong; in agreement with the true facts or with
> what is generally accepted:
>
> Thats a contradiction in terms. True facts are not always what is generally
> accepted...
>
> Illusion: 2 [C] something that is not really what it seems to be:
>
Other related posts:
