[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:32:20 +0200
Seeing the "sky" rotate (approximately) around Polaris once a day, cannot
a priori be used as an argument for or against geo-centricity. If you want
to combine it with something like, "I don't feel any movement of the Earth"
then that could probably be a point.
And in regards to "seeing is believing" - have a look at some Escher
drawings, or sit in a train at the station and see the neighbouring train
start to move.
Well, there are lots of practical reasons to know more about the Universe
than how to get to the nearest supermarket, but on a more philosophical note:
It enriches my life immensely to know what I know about the rest of the
Universe. To live a life, looking into the ground, really is to ignore a
major and most wonderful and wondrous part of what you would call
"Gods creation".
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear Regner,
> As yet I haven't given you my 5 facts supporting geocentrism. I can give you
>
> one fact and that is seeing is believing, I believe that what I observe in
> the sky is the truth. The other 4 facts would not interest you, by your
> rules that is.
>
> You may not accept this as a valid reason but I can assure you that it is
> and I would expect you to treat it as such. It might seem naive to you but I
>
> welcome you to correct me.
>
> I am content with this because I have no incentive or reason to investigate
> that which would have absolutely no practical application here on earth or
> enhance in any way life on this earth. That is not to say I'm against the
> seeking of knowledge within terrestrial confines and the beneficial use of
> it. However there are those who choose to waste vast amounts of resources,
> time and effort on something that is way-way beyond their reach and quite
> useless as far as having any beneficial effect on our existence. However I
> guess it pays the rent for those who are engaged in the effort. The only
> exception I would make to this position is to challenge those who say I am
> wrong to show me why. It is for this reason that I have been participating
> on this forum.
>
> Regards
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:38 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
>
>
> > Have a look at my response to Philip Madsen.
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/10-2007/msg00332.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Regner
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> > - -
> > Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >> Dear Regner,
> >> You may feel that the lack of being inundated with many '5 points' is
> >> because much of the case for geocentrism comes from undermining the
> >> so-called heliocentric proofs. You are asking us to supply 'facts' for
> >> geocentrism that you yourself cannot offer for heliocentrism or can you?
> >> May
> >>
> >> I ask you for your best 5 facts that back-up heliocentrism. This will
> >> give
> >> us a particular area to focus on.
> >>
> >> Although this is not part of the brief it will illustrate what I'm
> >> saying.
> >> When a creationists debates with an evolutionist, there is no point in
> >> waving the Bible at him. What he does is to show the scientific absurdity
>
> >> of
> >>
> >> life having been generated by an un-caused first cause randomly operating
>
> >> by
> >>
> >> pure chance and undirected by any intelligence, assembling inanimate
> >> chemicals into the incredibly complexity that's astounding genetic
> >> biologists on a daily.
> >>
> >> The geocentrist can build his case by calling into question what goes as
> >> 'read' for MS science.
> >>
> >> Jack
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Original Message -----
> >> From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:59 AM
> >> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
> >>
> >> Snip
> >>
> >> > You also know that I have written so many times before, that I will
> >> > collate
> >> > all the sets of 5 points that you guys submit, and then I'll address
> >> > the 5
> >> > top-scorers, one by one. I repeat, I have not begun to address the
> >> > title
> >> > of this thread "Is geocentrism supported by facts?" - I'll do that when
> >> > you
> >> > have submitted your points, which seems to be more complicated than I
> >> > had
> >> > thought.
> >> >
> >> > Regner Trampedach
> >> >
> >> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> >> > -
> >>
> >> > - -
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Quoting Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >
> >> >> Regner,
> >> >> In your first post you requested the following main items.....
> >> >>
> >> >> 1...Please keep your replies short, precise and concise.
> >> >> I don't have oceans of time, and neither, I suspect, do you.
> >> >> 2) References to scripture does not count as scientific evidence
> >> >> and cannot be used as support of a scientific theory.
> >> >> 3) The most basic observations in regards to the movements in the
> >> >> Solar system is the movements of the Sun, stars, the Moon, the
> >> >> planets, etc. That they move across the sky cannot in itself be
> >> >> taken as evidence for or against the geocentric theory.
> >> >>
> >> >> In regards to the Solar system we don't know a priori which is the
> >> >> case -
> >>
> >> >> is
> >> >> the Earth orbitingand revolving or is it stationary. So let's find
> >> >> out.
> >> >> I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the
> >> >> 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct.
> >> >> And please adhere
> >> >> to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that
> >> >> later.
> >> >> I replied with the following..i'll abbreviate here ...so as not to
> >> >> "confuse" you....(note: these are verbatim quotes of my response to
> >> >> your
> >> >> request)
> >> >>
> >> >> 1......thus the burden of proof for any motion is on those who claim
> >> >> motion
> >> >> for the earth, not on those who claim there is no proof of motion.
> >> >> since
> >> >> as
> >> >> you just did that since "In regards to the Solar system we don't know
> >> >> a
> >> >> priori which is the case" or we have no ordinary or intrinsic
> >> >> experience/
> >> >> knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did not make the car/
> >> >> universe)
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. All attempts to prove motion have come up short & or non
> >> >> existent......
> >> >> 3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies
> >> >> show
> >> >> concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth ......
> >> >> 4. .....The relative motion of the stars nightly produce an
> >> >> observable
> >> >> pattern ( nightly star trails)....However, annually around the north
> >> >> secondary Northern annual axis of rotation there is no observable
> >> >> pattern
> >> >> that can or has ever been demonstrated to coincided with that supposed
> >> >> motion....
> >> >> 5. 1, 2 ,3 &4 being true thus there is only left to us logically
> >> >> evidentiary "proof" ( as so far as anything can be proven) that the
> >> >> earth
> >>
> >> >> is
> >> >>
> >> >> A.the center of the universe and
> >> >> B.Has no demonstratable motion, ..............
> >> >> This can be and is the only logically conclusion that can be made
> >> >> (A&B)
> >> >> with the available observation and experience, ...........
> >> >> Further....You specifically requested......."- and don't go into
> >> >> much
> >> >> detail - we can do that later." Your "reply" to the "5 reasons" you
> >> >> asked
> >>
> >> >> for
> >> >> , you stated that you were unable to comprehend.?.....you referred
> >> >> them
> >> >> as
> >> >> "rambling" These are about as simple of statements as one can make.
> >> >> The additional commentary in my original posting assumed you had a
> >> >> certain
> >> >> level of understanding, both scientifically, historically and or
> >> >> logicaly, on
> >> >> this issue, that obviously you do not. This is the whole point of the
> >> >> discussion. ( where "the ruber meets the road" Geocentriciy v
> >> >> A-centricity in
> >> >> terms of relativity, Logic Observation and Experiance [LOE]etc...)
> >> >>
> >> >> You could have argued or replied even to Point #1 with something
> >> >> like:
> >> >> If it is true that we cannot assume earth to be in motion then we
> >> >> cannot
> >> >> assume the earth to be at rest. ..but you did not because you were not
> >> >> capable of understandingit and or the significance of that stament? If
> >> >> you
> >> >> are going to engage in a discussion seriously and intelligently, you
> >> >> should
> >> >> at least understand the significance of the basic premises underlying
> >> >> the
> >> >> issues and discussion itself. Apparently you wish to ignore those...!?
> >> >> If you had bothered to reply meaningfully, I could have replied
> >> >> somthing as
> >> >> follows....
> >> >>
> >> >> This is the point you miss, you cannot base any argument for earths
> >> >> supposed motion on assumptions. The very definition of motion is based
>
> >> >> on
> >> >> that human observation and experience (on this "absolute frame" or
> >> >> Just
> >> >> this
> >> >> "inertial frame") , defines for us and we can demonstrate the
> >> >> definitions
> >>
> >> >> of
> >> >> real and relative motion. We can also observe not just the mechanical
> >> >> action
> >> >> but certain other measurable effects to our human bodies of real and
> >> >> retaliative motion in our ordinary world. In our everyday ordinary
> >> >> world
> >> >> experience we can make the distinction between real and relative
> >> >> motion,
> >> >> our
> >> >> definition of motion real or otherwise is based on that experience
> >> >> (which
> >>
> >> >> is
> >> >> an experience that we have, not merely something we imagine)....We do
> >> >> not
> >> >> experience any effects in the earth??s supposed motions about the
> >> >> universe
> >> >> that we experience in our ordinary world ,that our very definitions of
> >> >> real
> >> >> and relative motions are based on. Thus, we can only make claim to the
> >> >> logical conclusion
> >> >> that since we do not experience motion thus
> >> >> 1. We can make no claims of the motion of the earth
> >> >> 2. Regardless of what the reality ultimately is, the only logical
> >> >> conclusion that we can make about some supposed earth motion, is that
> >> >> there
> >> >> is no evidential motion.we are only using what we have, ( lack of
> >> >> evidence
> >> >> for motion)
> >> >> not what we do not have.(we do not have some inherent
> >> >> knowledge/proof/
> >> >> model that tells us that everything must be "interpreted" so as to
> >> >> preclude
> >> >> real absolute motion measured against the earth as the ARF because we
> >> >> already
> >> >> know that there is no absolute motion all motion is relative to any
> >> >> given
> >> >> "inertial frame").
> >> >> However, it is not an assumption to start with what you have not
> >> >> with
> >> >> what
> >> >> you do not have. That is only logical, and has nothing to do with
> >> >> which
> >> >> one
> >> >> is reality and thus nothing to do with assumptions about reality. This
>
> >> >> is
> >> >> true regardless of whether or not you accept only "inertial frames" or
>
> >> >> an
> >> >> "absolute frame". cause we only have ordinary experience to proceeded
> >> >> from.......
> >> >>
> >> >> But alas, you did not. In- fact you did reply to any of the points.
> >> >> You
> >> >> only restated your posion, by claiming my points did not help me..??
> >> >> Again
> >> >> WOW, that determination is the point of this discusion is is not? (To
> >> >> logicaly determine the geocentric postion to be sound or not).. You
> >> >> stated
> >> >> "I can't figure out" thoes 5 points...???? Further, since you could
> >> >> not
> >> >> comprehend those 5 points, from that "lack of comprehension" you then
> >> >> proceeded to "deduce" that "You have a closed mind"....wow! You could
> >> >> not
> >> >> even "begin" to grasp those 5 points but you were able to deduce my
> >> >> whole
> >> >> mind set from those same 5 points...WOW again!!!..Why that is indeed
> >> >> an
> >> >> incredible feat of Intellectual prowess.......!?
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, you were offered a comprehensive compilation of evidence
> >> >> against
> >> >> A-centricity and for Geocentricity. You stated "that would be a wasted
> >> >> effort"....? I don?t see anything in your remarks demonstrating any
> >> >> real
> >> >> interest in this discussion at all.. Please prove me wrong. If you
> >> >> don't
> >> >> agree ( logically or scientifically) with one of those 5 reasons, (
> >> >> that
> >> >> you
> >> >> asked for) then make that known and please explain your objection(s)
> >> >> to
> >> >> them.
> >> >> Otherwise, (to quote you:) "you are rambling immensely and writing a
> >> >> lot
> >> >> of
> >> >> unsubstantiated non-sense abuot me and about modern science. If you
> >> >> carry
> >>
> >> >> on
> >> >> in this way, I'll deem you unable to participate in a civilized,
> >> >> scientific
> >> >> discussion, and I will ignore your posts. "
> >> >>
> >> >> Again quoting you, "IF we could finally get this discussion going"
> >> >>
> >> >> Allen Daves
> >> >>
> >> >> From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:00:23 +0200
> >> >>
> >> >> I deduce two points from your E-mail 1) Your are rambling and I can't
> >> >> figure
> >> >> out which words make up a sentence. Please adhere to my rule #1.
> >> >> 2)
> >>
> >> >> You
> >> >> have a closed mind, in that you don't recognize the two possible
> >> >> explanations of seeing something move; Either the observer moves,
> >> >> or
> >> >> the
> >> >> observed moves. In science we cannot afford such a closed mind -
> >> >> Nature
> >> >> has repeatedly outperformed human imagination. Neither of the two
> >> >> points
> >> >> does your case any good. Neither of your 5 reasons have been included
> >> >> yet,
> >> >> as I can't decipher them. Please write a clear summary if you want to
> >> >> proceed. Regards, Regner Trampedach
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
