[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 13:29:41 +1000
I have summed up your other points into:
"There exists a measurable ether, ergo the Earth cannot be moving."
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Well done. that is simple concise short and true if I could replace one
word.. ergo the earth need not be moving..
Nothing is certain in theoretical science, I can but hypothesise.
Only in religion/scripture would I dare to be certain of truth.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:39 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
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:
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.1/1078 - Release Date: 18/10/2007
5:47 PM
Other related posts:
