[geocentrism] Re: More to reflect on
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:11:32 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
Thanks for those files - I now have lots of light reading for those moments
when I can't think of anything else to do! There surely is a lot to consider.
Now concerning your comments below (in blue) - I can't say when, but I'm quite
certain that I've previously acknowledged that the nature of gravity is unknown
as I also acknowledged a similar ignorance in the matter of electric current
and I'm sure many other phenomena. What we can say with great confidence
however, is that while we don't know the nature of these phenomena, this does
not prevent us predicting with significant precision, the outcome of problems
involving these phenomena. Attraction (gravity) may be unproven/unproveable,
but until it can be shown otherwise, it is reasonable to accept the hypothesis
that gravity is an attractive force and that it is proportional to the product
of the masses and inversly proportional to the square of the distance between
their centres of mass. It works - utility is shown.
I'm encouraged that you're 'open to modification'! I'll just keep hammering
away then shall I? |[:-)
Cheers
Paul D
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Ok so I sent the file earlier. I would spoke a comment or 2 within in yours
below
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:11 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: More to reflect on
Philip M
Yes, I believe 4.17MB will not be a problem - please send.
My interest is sparked because I thought there were one or three points made
which rang alarm bells. I've only quickly read the articles as I seem to always
be short of time lately but I think there are valid criticisms to be made. It
reads, as is common where the writer is also the arbitrater - self indulgent.
these compilations were taken off the internet site where the dialogue took
place. I doubt Robert Sungenis had any part in this compilation. The Kramers
who compiled it may have done some editing for simplicity.
and yes I admit they have a bias towards geocentrism.
Concerning gravity - I'll have to get back to you on that. There are a number
of areas where I definately do not have the competance to comment, and this may
be true here. I especially am uncomfortable in the area of 'frames of
reference'. This seems to me to be an arena of fairly rarified theoretical
aspects which can be largely ignored if your field of interest is simply the
Newtonian aspects of a solar system, which has always been my principal area of
interest. Well I'm not trying to get into theoretical Gravity.. I just need an
admission from you that Newtons Physics/laws as regards the mathmatical
relationships and values does not answer the real nature of what gravity is..
Nobody knows. Attraction is only an unprovable assumption.
I also still have one or more of your - now many days old - posts which I
wished to address - at this distance just one or two paragraphs which I did
wish to respond to. Most of the remainder, again at this distance, it is
probably not profitable to persue especially as we both have our views which
neither of us is likely to modify. I want to assure you that I would never have
arrived to where I'm at, if I had never been open to modification. cheers
Philip.
Paul D
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
