[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
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.
1. When you state the question "which one is moving"? ....There can therefore
be no assumption of motion first, thus the only logical position to start from
is first to prove motion NOT first prove there is no motion......you must start
with what you have, not what you do not have... there is no demonstratable
motion of the earth external of an assumption of motion first...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....Data
cannot be interpreted as demonstrating some imaginary theoretical construct 3rd
alternative(STR) first without assuming the conclusion that the earth must
really be in motion, is true first..which is what you were trying to prove one
way of the other to begin with...(invoking a circular fallacy).......To assume
some third option is true ( since the earth behaves stationary at the center
thus all the motions must just be relative/illusionary) as the reason why the
second option (earth in motion) is realy not false, is in essence to assume the
conclusion as the premises for the argument that "proves" it. ........The only
two alternatives experiments/ observations have ever had any possibility of
logical proof up to any given point in time/history in which they were made, up
to the present time was real/absolute motion or no real/absolute motion(to the
earth)......There was no real/absolute motion
demonstrated/ fell short ascribed (to the earth),............. Thus, we cannot
assume some third alternative,(STR) (that all motion including/ especialy EMR
is only and all relative and therefore no real/absolute motion), without
assuming that is true first..why/...because, that is what they are/were trying
to prove one way or the other...and still do even now days.....and that option
(relativity) is
A. Not only unnecessary external of its own conclusion, (we really are in
motion but just cannot demonstrated it becuase all is relitive so no way to
measure, thus we must be in motion..!?)
B. It is not provable ..(all motion just relative motion with no preferred or
absolute reference frame)..even if it were true you could not claim proof for
motion of the earth, it can only be assumed within that theoretical construct.
C. It's own constructs have been shown to be falsified,..light is not
isotropic....a distinction of real v absolute motion can be made in the
everyday world thus there is no logical bases for making claim of proof for
otherwise in the rest of the world that we can only experience indirectly using
the experience of the everyday world as the only logical frame of ref from
which to begin to argue from. (Starting with what you have not with what you do
not have)
3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show
concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth as so far as it can be
observed and measured in terms of accuracy ( by definition of the term
center)...again starting with what you have not with what you do not have....no
third options can be claimed, that it is all just an illusion without assuming
that is true first then constructing some theoretical frame work to explain how
that could possibly be if we only assume it is true/ "most reasonable" first.
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....The annual patterns
are based on an effect that is larger by many orders of magnitude, thus the
argument cannot be made that the effect is to small to observe for if it were
the case, then the smaller effect would not be observable either....
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, (without invoking circular fallacies
using theories (STR) that are only nessisary & or justifiable within the very
conclusions they propose to "prove")... However, the converse cannot be
logically concluded without assuming the very conclusion that any argument
would attempt to prove, as the proof for itself.........ie the is no
justification for (STR) external of its own conclusion (every thing including
EMR is in only in relitive motion there is no absolute ref frame for
motion)..but that was the whole point of the experiments, to see if that is
true..to assume it is true frist then interpret the results/data or construct
theoretical constructs for such is to invoke a circular fallacy.. ...In short,
The data taken without invoking the very conclusion(s) that the alternative
arguments attempts to prove ( everything all only in relative motion with no
such absolute reference frame) show no such motion as described in a HC/AC or
Helio/Acentric universe...
Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to start a discussion about whether your theory of a
geocentric Universe with a fixed non-rotating Earth holds up against
evidence. Please hold back your E-mails about all the evidence you see,
and let's attack the problem in a systematic and scientific manner.
First a few rules:
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 a previous E-mail I asked Bernhard Brauer, Marshall Hall and
Neville Jones whether: "When driving a car, is the car going
forward, or the Earth going backwards?" They all answered the
obvious and correct - that the car is going forward. We (humans)
designed and built the cars so we know that. In regards to the Solar
system we don't know a priori which is the case - is the Earth orbiting
and 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.
1. When you state "which one is moving"? thus , there can be no assumption
of motion then the only logical postion to start from is first to prove motion
NOT first prove there is no motion......you must start with what you have, not
what you do not have... you have no demonstratable motion external of an
asssumption of motion first...thus the burden of proff for any motion is on
those who calim motion for the earth, not on thoes 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
experiance/ knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did not make the car/
universe)
2. All attmptes to prove motion have come up short....the data cannot be
interpreted as offering some 3rd alternative first without assuming that
alternitive is true first...becaue the two alternitives were real/absolute
motion or no real/absolute motion(to the earth)......there was no real/absolute
motion deomonstrated/ fell short ascribed (to the earth), thus we cannot assume
some third alternative, (that all motion is only and all relitive and therefore
no real/absolute motion), without assuming that is true first..why/...because,
that is what they are/were trying to prove even now days.....to assume some
third option is true ( since the earth behaves sationary at the center thus all
the motions must just be relitive) as the reason why the second option (earth
in motion) is realy not false, is in essence to assume the conclusion as the
premisise for the arguemet that makes it.
3. 1 and 2 are true thus there is only left to us logicaly evidentury "proof"
( as so far as anything can be proven) that the earth is 1.the center of the
universe and 2.has no motion, ..............This is and can be logicaly
conluded with observation and experiance. However, the converse cannot be
logicaly concluded without assuming the very consclusion that any argument
would attempt to prove as the proof for it self.........ie the is no
justification for releitivity external of its own concluisons (every thing is
in motion there is no absolute ref frame for motion)..but that was the whole
point of the experiments, to see if that is true..to assume it is true frist
then interpret data or construct theoretical constructs for such is to invoke a
circular falicy.. ...the data taken without invoking the very conclusion(s)
that the alternative arugment attempts to prove ( everyting all only in
relitive motion with no such absolute reference frame) show no such motion as
described in a HC/AC or Acentric universe...
4. all observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double gallexies show
concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth as so far as it can be
measured in terms of accuracy...again starting with what you have not with what
you do not have....no third options can be claimed, that it is all just an
illusion without assuming that is true first then constructing some theoretical
frame work to explain how that could posibly be if we only assume it is true/
"most reasonable" first.
5. The reltive motion of the stars nightly produce an observable
pattern....however, annualy arround the north secondary annual axis of rotaion
the is no observable pattern....The annual patterns are based on an effect that
is larger by many orders of magnitude, thus the argument cannot be made that
the effect is to small to observe for if it were then the smaller effect would
not be observable either....
I'll collate the replies in a few days into a list of the 5 reasons that
are cited most often in your replies.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Other related posts:
