[geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:43:13 +1000
This is what I mean by obstropolis Bernie..
Philip:
Marshall is denying a basic observational experience, that when we are on a
ship at sea, we cannot SEE whether it is the ship that is moving, or the water
that is moving with a tidal current.
Bernie:
A moving ship would have a wake that you could see.
Not so.
Your scientific perception is not observable. A ship on power, running at
5knots , against a current of 5 knots would not be moving, and yet the bow wave
and the wake would be identical to that observed if it were moving 5knots on
still water.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble discerning relative motions. No matter
you are not alone in that.
You never did reply to my statement that the comets "tail" is not a tail, and
is often forward as well as behind the comets motion.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:18 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
Me ( Bernie ) in green.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bernie,
It would be uncharitable, perhaps unkind for me to make any sequential
comments regarding the assertions made in response to my post by Marshall Hall
below.
I was not debating the truth of heliocentrism as a denial of Geocentrism. I
do not deny the truth of the Bible, or that the church has declared the truth
of the Geocentric system. Saying something, even the Bible saying it, is a
statement. It is not scientific evidence that can be used as proof. We must
argue with rational purely scientific evidence.
Anyone who states this as evidence,
We know we see the sun, moon, and stars go around the Earth daily ... is
speaking with the simplicity of a child
Luke 18:16-17
16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and
do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 17 Truly, I say to
you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter
it."
"If we don't receive the kingdom like a child, we don't get the kingdom!
There is a right way to receive the kingdom that gives us access and a wrong
way that shuts us out. The consequences are dire, and we must understand what
receiving the kingdom like a child means."
who has never experienced the illusion caused by two trains side by side in
a railway station when one begins to move.
What we see is the sun traversing the sky. We do not see it circling the
Earth. The Earth from what we see, might as well be flat.
You're shifting the argument from sun or Earth movement to
shape of Earth.
Marshall is denying a basic observational experience, that when we are on a
ship at sea, we cannot SEE whether it is the ship that is moving, or the water
that is moving with a tidal current.
A moving ship would have a wake that you could see.
I cannot debate physical phenomena with a person so severely limited in
perception.
"I will not debate physical phenomena with a person who shaves with
Occam's razor":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution
tends to be the right one," or alternately, "we should not assert that for
which we do not have some proof." In other words, when multiple competing
theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the
theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest
entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 4:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
Marshall Hall wrote:
In Red...
philip madsen wrote:
No, I mean the opposite.. Geocentrism is shaky..
the helio postion is NOT based on a presumption that the world
moves..
Not the issue. The issue is that the modern cosmological model of
billions of years of evolution rests on acceptance of the heliocentric model
which is a contrived mathematical construct that denies the unvarying
observational evidence of the sun, moon, and stars going around the earth 24/7.
Why must "a rational person" throw out that overwhelmingly solid evidence in
favor of hypotheses drawn from ephemeral "laws" which declare that solid
evidence untrue?
We based our belief on a rotating world upon sound rational science
that the following is observed. planets all orbit the sun.. They do in Tycho
Brahe's geocentric model.
Physics as proven in a laboratory, requires that lighter bodies
must orbit a larger more massive body. Observed and proven. Observed; not
proven. In a NASA lecture on TV the scientists said in so many words: "If I
had a glove big enough and heat resistant enough, I could stick my hand right
through the sun." Science doesn't know that the sun is a thermonuclear
entitity. It doesn't know that stars are suns. It does know that there has
never been a resolution of any star; hence everything about them is unproven
hypothesis. Its distance measuring techniques (26 of them) are models of lies
and fraud. Textbook cosmology is a virtual reality video game:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Virtual%20Reality%20Fraud.htm
http://www.fixedearth/com/Size%20and%20Structure%20Part%20VI.htm
That the earth is not heavier than the sun is proved and observed..
The rational observer must conclude the sun cannot orbit the earth,
but follow the same laws that mars or venus does.
That the earth is the stationary centre of the universe and holding
on to an orbiting sun, is irrational and contrary to already well proved
mechanical laws. Most of which "laws" are tied to wholly hypothetical
gravitational metaphysics now under heavy attack by physicists and electrical
engineers, etc. http://www.fixedearth.com/electric.html
We hold to our unique position of a stationary world on no
obviously observable phenomena or law of science. Ridiculous. Depends upon
one's definition of "science" (scire: to know). We know we see the sun, moon,
and stars go around the earth daily and we know all of the rest of the known
phenomena works with a geocentrism model. We hold to that position purely based
upon the word of God. We hold to that position because we see it confirmed with
our own eyes. We claim we believe in hundreds of miracles in the Bible that
"science" denies out of hand. Why do we make that claim and simultaneously
reject the geocentric order of the universe for which we have had hard visual
evidence every hour of every day throughout all history and which Scripture
teaches repeatedly? http://www.fixedearth.com/sixty-seven%20references.htm
Such is contrary to science as currently known, observed and well
proven. We have a most difficult task to prove our case using science, and not
basing it upon our presumption that the Word of God cannot err. If it's the
Word of God then it cannot err lest God err. If He errs on this most plainly
seen of all cosmological miracles, geocentrism, then who can blame anyone for
counting Genesis creation, the virgin birth, resurrection, heaven, and all
other miracles that no one today has seen, as being errors? Rejecting Biblical
geocentrism destroys Bible credibility. That's why modern history's defining
concept is called "The Copernican Revolution". That concept began placing a
"science falsely so called" Idol before the world to rob God and His Word of
the basis of all knowledge, i.e., the truth about the origin of all that is.
Copernican "science" torpedoed Bible credibility amidships and paved the way
for Darwinian "science" and Einsteinian "science" and on through Saganian
"science" and Wickramasingheian "science" until now the False Science Idol
(straight out of the Kabbala, not the Bible!) stands on the brink of hate
crimeing the Bible and Jesus out of business. I don't believe God is going to
stand for it because He has said repeatedly not to change the Book That Book,
as we know, says God cnnot lie and all that contradicts His inspired truths
given to mankind is deception from Satan. Of course we can deny that too if we
choose to. But it is a choice that is duly noted according to the same Book as
you know, I'm sure (John 12:48; etc.).
If it was just basic observation, Roberts Bennett and Sungenis
Catholic scholars long ago (1546-1563) declared that contradictions between the
Bible and the Church were to be resolved by following the church. would have no
need for such a comprehensive book as GWW.
To confirm our point we must add to those established scientific
laws, as ennunciated by Paul Does Paul denounce Biblical geocentrism? I missed
that., something new and prove it,
NOT , I repeat not seek to destroy them..
Philip. Philip: We both could go a lot further with our separate
themes here. For my part, it is enough to know that: a) Modern Big Bang
Evolutionary Paradigm cosmology--with its 15 billion light year thick and 15
billion year old universe--rests squarely on the continued maintenance of
heliocentricity and denial of Bible geocentrism; b) Every single concept of
that helo paradigm is found in another "holy book" (Zohar/Kabbala) of the
Christ-hating Pharisee Religion. c) We cannot serve two masters.
Marshall
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 7:27 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Marshalls assertions
Phil,
You mean, "the helio position is the most shaky......?????
Bernie
philip madsen wrote:
Bernie Marshall said,
Does Regner not know that the Geocentrism model--which just
happens to be the Biblical Model--answers all known phenomena without resorting
to the observation-etc..
But this is just as much a presumption, scientifically, it is
an unproven assumption that the Bible is stating the truth.
Both sides of this debated rest on a base presumption. But the
geocentrist position is the most shaky, having no consistency in the rational
scientific approach to what is observed, scientifically..
Such an argument as Marshall presents, cannot stand in physics,
as physics is currently observed.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bernie Brauer
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:28 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Is geocentrism supported by facts?
Bernie,
I scrolled through the listings on the link...on down to
Regner's commentaries.
Everything he says is based on one foundational belief, viz.,
the ASSUMPTION that the Earth is rotating on an axis. He cannot prove that
ASSUMPTION. He can build a layer of other assumptions on it all the way to the
Big Bang Paradigm and call it proof--which is what modern cosmology has
done--but that proves nothing. Does Regner not know that the Geocentrism
model--which just happens to be the Biblical Model--answers all known phenomena
without resorting to the observation-denying assumptions that are indispensable
to the heliocentricity-dependent Big Bang Model, which just happens to be the
Kabbalic Model??
Ultimately--as far as a search for truth is concerned--this
pivotal helio/geo issue drives the proponents into a spiritual corner where
they can only say: I support the Biblical Geocentism model of the Christian
Religion, or, I support the Kabbalist heliocentricity model of the Pharisee
religion. There is no secular science involved in either model.
I understand that this demonstrable fact has barely seeped
into the mainstream of the knowledge tsunami on the Net, but fact it is
nonetheless. Regner and the whole heliocentricity-based theoretical science
establishment will--however traumatic it may be--have to face that spiritual
imperative and overtly align with one holy book and one religion or the other
holy book and the other religion before this is over.
Those two books and those two religions cover both models.
Just as there are two choices and two alone relevant to whether the Earth moves
or not, there are two choices of holy books and religions ( Koran: same Moses
creation account with no evolution ). And let it be underscored again: There is
no secular science involved in either model. That claim to be "secular science"
is the great deceptive label under which the theoretical science
establishment--wittingly or unwittingly has masqueraded, especially from
Copernicus to the present. Thus has this now demonstrable deception steadily
and surreptitiously guided the implantation of the 15 billion year Pharisee
evolutionary "alternative creation scenario" in the minds of modern mankind.
This fact has brought the Bible--and its Author--to the brink of mockery,
echoing Nietzsche: "God is dead. We have killed him with our science."
We shall soon see about that echo.
Marshall Hall www.fixedearth.com email: fefinc@xxxxxxxx
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regner T
Thank you for your kind words.
I appreciate that you do not have unlimited time at your
disposal and it is not my wish to burden you. I also note that you have managed
to respond to all posts on this subject (unless I missed one) suggesting a
streak of thoroughness to your character! However I did post to you on 2007 Oct
13 (prior to your suggested framework for discussion) in a "Welcome to the
forum" message in which I drew your attention to a submission of mine to this
forum which can be found here ->
//www.freelists.org/archives/geocentrism/09-2007/msg00298.html. It
contains three propositions in excess of the five you requested but it does
bear on the matter at hand.
I mention this against the possibility that it may have
escaped your attention.
A side note -- I see from a post from Jack L that you
appear to have an association with Stromolo in Canberra. I was posted there in
the early 1970s and visited the observatory. That of course was before the
disastrous fires of a few years ago. Have you been there since? I'd like to
think it has been reinstated.
Paul D
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.3/1082 - Release Date:
20/10/2007 2:59 PM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1084 - Release Date: 21/10/2007
3:09 PM
Other related posts:
