[geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 12:40:18 -0700 (PDT)

  1.People can make illogical arguments even the kinds that mentaly ill foks 
make..without having a mental illness.....?
  2. Are you saying that NASA denys that the tides are accelerated by the suns 
moons gravity or are you saying they do accept that the tides are accelerated 
by the suns moon gravity?..I state they do claim the moons/suns gravity is the 
cause of the tides....what say you?. if they are accelrated by the tides then 
it does not matter what NASA claims it cannot both be a detectable accelertion 
wrt the sun/ moon while at the same time claiming that accelertions in free 
fall cannot be detected wrt the sun/ moon..it is the free fall Paul that would 
be producing the detectable accelertions in the tides...!?
  3. & my point # 2:...(I attached the full document as a PDF aslo ref my 
diagram)........It is difficult to debate you about interia when you keep 
appealing to "i have no idea what you are talking about" when i pose the issue 
and or demonstrate the contridiction that you and Regner keep 
asserting..........ok read the following ..this comes from as MS as it gets and 
"NASA" WILL NOT DISAGREE !?...........This explains what Gravity and inertia 
are in GTR....GTR Paul is the only theory that explains why accelerations in 
free fall cannot be dected and it is the appeal that regner made.......it has 
everything to do with the relationship of Gravity and inertia via the 
Equivilence principle..........Regener stated point blank that GTR was 
wrong...inertia is not gravity but he used the very same assertion to explain 
why accelerations in free fall cannot be detected...!?    
  2.1 General problems with a gravitational theory of inertia
  One of the most striking features of the General Theory of Relativity is that 
it essentially banishes the
  concept of a gravitational force. Gravity, according to GR, is a distortion 
of the metric of spacetime. An
  object seen by a distant observer to be accelerating in a gravitational eld 
is, in fact, pursuing a geodesic
  path appropriate to the spacetime geometry in its immediate vicinity: no 
accelerometer mounted on such
  an object will detect an acceleration.
  The Principle of Equivalence, adopted by Einstein as a starting point in the 
construction of GR, asserts
  that the state of free-fall one would encounter in deep space, far from all 
gravitational sources, is in fact
  the same state one encounters while falling freely in a strong gravitational 
eld.(11) As a corollary of this
  equivalence, an acceleration relative to the local free-fall geodesic has the 
same e
ects, whatever the local
  geometry. Near Earth's surface, for example, geodesic paths accelerate toward 
Earth's center. To hold
  an object at rest relative to Earth's surface, therefore, requires that it be 
\accelerated" relative to this
  geodesic by the application of force; and, by Einstein's original formulation 
of equivalence, the e
ects of this
  acceleration are indistinguishable from those encountered in an accelerating 
reference frame in remote space
  (see, e.g. Einstein(12)).
  In other words, the Principle of Equivalence asserts that gravitational 
\forces" as conventionally measured
  are inertial reaction forces { pseudo-forces, as these are sometimes called. 
We thus see that any attempt
  to identify gravity as the source of inertia, within the context of GRT, su
ers from an essential circularity.
  At the level of ordinary discourse, this is almost trivially obvious. We 
consider an extrinsic theory of inertia
  which claims that inertial reaction forces are gravitational forces. But the 
equivalence principle requires that
  gravitational forces are inertial reaction forces, so applying equivalence to 
the theoretical claim we see it
  reduce to the uninformative declaration that inertial reaction forces are 
inertial reaction forces.
  To demonstrate that this is not simply linguistic play, let us consider the 
situation with a bit more rigor.
  The various extrinsic-inertia models discussed by WM all have the common 
feature that they mandate the
  appearance of a gravitational eld in an accelerated frame of reference. This 
is, in fact, quite uncontroversial
  and in no way depends on the acceptance of Mach's principle. Traditional, 
non-Machian approaches to
  GRT note that an accelerating reference frame will see a space-time metric 
corresponding to a gravitational
  eld pervading all space. This is quite unsurprising since the accelerating 
observer sees the entire Universe
  accelerating relative to itself, and how better to explain this than by a 
cosmic gravitational eld? The
  Machian element comes in only when one requires that the source of this 
cosmic eld should be the overall
  mass distribution of the cosmos, rather than an intrinsic property of 
  Regardless of the source of the cosmic gravitational eld, an object held at 
rest in it | that is to say,
  any massive object sharing the motion of the accelerating reference frame | 
will, of course, exert weight on
  whatever agency is holding it at rest. In the reference frame of the cosmos, 
on the other hand, the accelerating
  body is exerting the expected inertial reaction force on whatever agency is 
causing it to accelerate. Have we
  explained inertia via the cosmic gravitational eld?
  Unfortunately, the standard geometrical approach to GRT says otherwise. In 
the presence of a gravitational
  eld, an unconstrained body must fall freely along a geodesic path. To alter 
its motion from this
  spontaneous condition, one must apply a force to it, creating an acceleration 
which will be noted by, for
  example, any accelerometer rigidly mounted on the body. Common experience 
requires that this will produce
  an inertial reaction force as the body's inertia resists this acceleration. 
At this point we can identify three
  alternative explanations for the inertial reaction:
  1. The inertia is intrinsic to the mass of the body. While this is consistent 
with observation it simply
  postulates inertia without explaining it.
  2. The inertia is extrinsic to the mass, being the result of the interaction 
of the mass with some nongravitational
  eld. The ZPF-inertia theory of HRP falls into this class.
  3. The inertia is extrinsic to the mass and results from the interaction of 
the mass with the apparent
  gravitational eld. This gravitational explanation of inertia is the one WM 
are claiming.
  To see how peculiar a theory of the third class above actually is, let us ask 
why the inertial reaction
  force appears at all in this theory. WM apparently believe that the presence 
of a gravitational eld in the
  accelerating frame is a sucient explanation: the reaction force is the 
body's weight in this eld. But why
  do bodies have weight in a gravitational eld? In the standard formalism of 
geometrodynamics, gravity is
  not a force but a consequence of the local shape of spacetime. \Weight" is 
actually the inertial reaction
  force that results from accelerating an object away from its natural geodesic 
path. But we are, here, trying
  to explain inertial reaction forces. To say that an inertial reaction force 
is the weight resulting from gravity
  in the accelerated frame explains nothing in geometrodynamics, because weight 
is already assumed to be an
  inertial reaction force and one is therefore positing inertial reactions to 
explain inertial reactions. Therefore,
  this \explanation" of the origin of inertial reaction forces is circular if 
one is operating in the standard
  geometrical interpretation of GRT.
  It is, of course, possible to abandon this interpretation and presume that 
gravity actually does exert
  forces directly on objects, as in the original Newtonian theory. This, 
unfortunately, introduces a di
  circularity. The fact that a gravitational eld appears in an accelerating 
frame is, as noted above, true in
  any formulation of GRT, Machian or not, and remains true whether inertia is 
intrinsic or extrinsic. The
  gravitational-inertia theory wishes to assert that this gravitational eld is 
the cause of the inertial reaction
  force. But this is the same as the assumption that gravitational elds exert 
forces; we cannot claim to have
  explained inertia in this formalism when we incorporate our desired 
conclusion into the initial assumptions.
  This would appear to be a very general problem with e
orts to nd a gravitational origin for inertia
  in the standard, geometrodynamic interpretation of GRT. There are, of course, 
ways around this. An
  argument by Sciama(13), for example, nds a reaction force arising from a 
\gravito-magnetic" reaction with
  a presumed gravitational vector potential. It is, however, well worth noting 
that Sciama's argument is
  based on analogizing gravitation to electromagnetism, in the weak- eld limit 
of GR. In this weak- eld limit
  one typically does not work explicitly with the geometrical consequences of 
metric distortion, but rather
  represents interactions in terms of potentials and forces. The circularity 
noted above disappears, but with it
  the conceptual parsimony of GR. Indeed, as WM themselves assert (their 
section 3.2), Sciama's argument
  was originally conceived as a refutation of GRT.
  General relativity, in reducing gravity to a consequence of geometry, o
ers a very hostile background to a
  gravitational theory of extrinsic inertia. GR shows how mass distorts 
spacetime, and allows one to calculate
  the trajectories unconstrained bodies will follow in the resulting distorted 
spacetime. It does not explain why
  a body, constrained by non-gravitational forces to travel on some trajectory 
that is not a geodesic, exerts an
  inertial reaction force proportional to its mass.
  This is, of course, a trivial non-mystery if one navely presumes inertia to 
be intrinsic to mass. The
  attempt, however, to construct a gravitational theory of extrinsic inertia 
within geometrodynamics seems
  doomed to circularity.

  4. my point #3 I asked Regner how he would know there is a orbit...he calimed 
via a gyro...and change in direction is an acceleration by defintion....how do 
you have a detecatable  change in direction without having a detectable 
acceleration at the same time wrt the same bodies in question...?! newton does 
not help anyone here...Newton agrees with me.....
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Big, black.

    ----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 5:30:10 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

      Paul, .....You have the roles completely reversed yet again?! I did not 
claim you had a mental illness.. Hair splitting .i said your arguments thus far 
exemplify all those attributes....How could that be if i didn't so 
suffer?....in any case..........I have addressed the points........you and 
Regner have not.........They are the same points i have listed now for months 
  The earth has no detectable acceleration around the sun therefore no such 
motion as per HA?AC can exist.....the reasons you say it is not detectable are 
because accelerations in or of a free fall cannot be detected...based on thus 
far the equivalence principle.....Newton claims just the opposite.... 
  1. If there is not way to detect the earthâ??â??â??â??s acceleration around 
the sun in free fall, then how does that same grav in that exact same inertial 
ref frame create an observable and different acceleration with the 
tides?.......If it does then you canâ??â??â??â??t claim the acceleration in 
free fall cant be detected...and if it could, NASA would not deny it -- they 
would use it and you would fall over yourself to tell me whether the green 1kg 
lead sphere or the red 1kg lead sphere won the race to perihelion.. If the 
tides are not accelerated by the sun/ moon inertial field then you have a 
bigger problem donâ??â??â??â??t you?.....
  2.Explain how a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical orbit of a near star 
different from a circular/ continuous arc/ elliptical trajectory wrt a distant 
star..I have no idea what you're talking about... This is valid question 
regardless of what inertia is or is not or the cause of inertia....how does 
inertia know that we are in orbit verse just taking a curved path in space wrt 
the same body? Because it has an IQ of 150?..The equivalence principle used to 
explain this states that inertia is a reaction to Grav fields.......INERTIA IS 
GRAVITY!..Regner does not agree that inertia is gravity...we both agree on 
that......... but Relativity...... he used Relativity to explain why 
accelerations cannot be detected in free fall........me and Regner agree that 
inertia is not Gravity...where we differ is Regner claims it is a force i say 
it is not a force........but the explanations he used makes those 
claims........!? Wake up PAUL!!!
  3. How you can have a detectable change in orientation wrt a body (in 
grav/inertial free fall) while not having a detectable acceleration wrt the 
same body..... appelaing to newton who defines it in terms of absolute motion 
on the one hand for part of your explination and then relativity that is 
mutually exclusivecan claiming it is a lovgical path to that conclusion is 
Schizoid ...?!I have no idea what you're talking about.

  ......Your and Regners arguments have been and not been all at the same 
time....you feel wilted by my arguments because yours wont work.Yeah! 
Right!..Regner makes a speach that states absolutely nothing except that he 
disagrees with his own explanations....suddenly you have a renewed confidence 
in Physics...that is a bi polar position......there is nothing consistent about 
of Regner's cherypicking and disavowing his own argument that demonstrates 
anything except the terms i used to describe your positions/ 

    Allen, in all the time I've known you, you have distinguished yourself as 
someone who will not engage in a debate. Your tactics are entirely 
diversionary, obfuscationist and sophistic. A long time ago, on the subject of 
circular arguments, I asked you if a statement of the form -- "We know that God 
is true because the Bible tells us so. And how can we be sure that the Bible 
tells us the truth? Because it is God's word!" is a circular argument or not. 
You absolutely ignored the question then and subsequently and I'm quite sure 
you will do it again now.
  A long time ago, in the British House of Commons if memory serves me, one 
member referred to another member in terms which I cannot here repeat verbatim 
as our ever vigilant moderator would surely bin me, so I will render that 
statement in clinical terms. He said that the member was "... all urine and 
flatulence." He could have been addressing you. Far from wilting your opponents 
with your arguments, the truth is you won't engage. It's like wrestling with a 
column of smoke. Like grappling with an eel in a bucket of warm fat.

  On at least three occasions I have very frankly and openly asked you to 
engage in the pursuit of truth. You responded on each occasion in a manner 
which suggested that you would join with me in this pursuit. And on each 
occasion on the next exchange you returned to your sad, predictable form. Three 
strikes Allen. I should have learnt by now I guess.
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:04:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

    Allen D
  Well you're nothing if not predictable.
  No retraction -- no points addressed.
  Regarding definitions -
Neurosis, also known as psychoneurosis or neurotic disorder, is a "catch all" 
term that refers to any mental imbalance that causes distress, but, unlike a 
psychosis or some personality disorders, does not prevent rational thought or 
an individual's ability to function in daily life. ...
A major mood disorder in which there are episodes of both mania and depression.
No definitions were found for schizoidfrantic.
  However schizoid returned -
Having symptoms similar to those of schizophrenia . See the entire definition 
of Schizoid -
    Definition of Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia: One of several brain diseases whose symptoms that may include 
loss of personality (flat affect), agitation, catatonia, confusion, psychosis, 
unusual behavior, and withdrawal. The illness usually begins in early 
  The causes of schizophrenia are not yet fully known. Schizophrenia is not 
caused by poor parenting practices. A variant version of a gene called COMT has 
been found to increase the risk for developing schizophrenia. The normal 
version of the COMT gene helps process dopamine, a brain chemical. The variant 
version of the COMT gene is less active in this regard. Other genes and 
environmental factors may well be involved in schizophrenia.
  Treatment is with neuroleptic medication and supportive interpersonal 
therapy. The prognosis is currently fairly good, with two-thirds of those 
diagnosed recovering significantly.
  Source: MedTermsâ?¢ Medical Dictionary 
  I'm the outsider here Allen and I'm frequently at odds with most of the other 
members. Fully cognisant of this state of affairs and in no way accusing you of 
these mental disorders, I'd predict that should you and I be assessed by the 
members at large on this forum as to whether or not either of us exhibit signs 
of mental abnormality of any kind, the honest assessment of those self same 
members would be against me so presenting.
  And your suggestions are still insulting.
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May, 2008 3:43:48 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  "This is just plain insulting. Withdraw it and I may address one or more of 
your points."
  This is a long post but as i reference at the bottom it is more for posterity 
then the current foolishness i'm dealing with........
  Paul you left out the last and most important part of what i said, which 
was......."by definition"...you should look thoses terms up and see how they 
relate to your arguments .........it is not a insult........... it is 
fact...insults are subjective in nature but facts are "scientific"/ objective 
in nature......... that description is the current state of the explanations of 
the issues and how those issues affect the overall debate of HC/AC vs 
GC.....the only "addressing" of these issues you or Regner have even attempted 
has been with contradictions and incoherent inconsistencies and or mere 
assertions of "axioms" in your theories as to why your theories are 
  Paul lets be honest here, neither you nor Regner have any intention of 
seriously dealing with the nity gritty of any of these issues. Making comments 
does not continue addressing the problems and or inconsistencies and or 
contradictions , any more then a student or a politician who writes of gives a 
ten page speech about change and how we are better then this....in substance he 
states absolutely nothing and the dumb masses love him for it 
......LOL.............You and he have had plenty of time to do so if your 
objective was to ascertain the most logical position between HC and GC based on 
observations and evaluations of data in logic.... .....If that had been truly 
your aim then you would have to admit (even if HC /AC were somehow true) that 
GC is the only logical conclusion anyone can claim to have arrived at without 
invoking pure imaginations to explain the results of ordinary and even 
extraordinary observations and experiments....you would have to admit the 
choice of
 HC/AC over GC is one of philosophical choice not observational data...even 
Hawking...Hoel and others know this.....you and Regner are only fooling your 
selves, if I were wrong you would had no problem demonstrating it by now, but 
come on....guys....quoting the assertions of your theory as the evidence that 
supposedly shows your theory is thus demonstrated!? ......You and Regner talk 
about things...........you talk around things..... but you donâ??t actually 
deal with your problems, in fact im not sure if you even see the significance 
of them............. No, I think Regner prefers to ignore it and fool himself 
and people like you into believing "nothing is wrong" with the HC/AC paradigm 
...folk like allen are just "unreasonable" and better to ignore those kinds of 
"attacks".......yea sure.......LOL.........Thatâ??s fine, fool yourself with 
what ever you like, but at the end of the day.... Iâ??m not the one who has 
such problems demonstrating my position objectivly without
 evoking my position as itâ??s own justifications wich is a assumption which 
again is subjective ....... At every opportunity you and Regner have had thus 
far you seem to demonstrate nothing that can be reproduced in the real world 
without assuming the real world is just an illusion first...but you cant even 
demonstrate anything that would be evidentiary to support that 
assertion.....nor can you or he make anything you guys have put forward fit 
consistently with the rest of MS theory.....LOL..... you think you & Regner are 
making "sense". Your making foolishness and attempting to suggest and or insist 
that it is everyone else who are not being "reasonable"....poor Regner has had 
to wait "weeks if not months" for only 5 challenges..........LOL.......all I 
have asked is that you guys first start with and demonstrate some observation 
that you accept at face value without assuming anything is just an illusion 
and...start from that and show us how we reached a logical conclusion
 that the earth is moving. however you cannot put anything forward that: 
  1. Assumes the very thing or conclusion that you are trying to demonstrate 
(engaging in endless circular fallacies) 
  2. Quit contradicting your self and or your arguments ( ie relativity ) own 
terms & or constructs 
  3. Demonstrate a logical method & path for your conclusions..
  4. Get your applications between subjective and objective and or observations 
and imaginations clear................ Quit feeling sorry for yourselves by 
accusing this side of the very things you are and have attempted to engage 
in...procrastination, lack of civilized scientific discussion.. et all Speaking 
"softly" and or with "gentle words" or with whatever you want to define a 
"civilized scientific discussion" with does not make baseless assertions and 
logical contradictions more humble or more reasonable....it only makes you more 
"subtle" but still even more arrogant then your detractors and their positions 
that can be demonstrated...lol.. ... thus it ultimately just it makes you more 
foolish...again by definition...look it up.....just exactly when did you start 
believing that folk who hold a position with soft words and subtle phrases that 
cannot be demonstrated are more "civilized" then folk who simply refuse to let 
fools run the store..?! If you are offended
 ...well you should...but not because of what i said is subjective but because 
of what you have demonstrated in a very objectivly observed  
manner.......otherwise demonstrate my error ...but donâ??t accuse me of " being 
"insulting" when I point out your error.....The insult here, thus far is from 
foolish and ignorant arguments that suppose Iâ??m the one being "unreasonable" 
.....Paul, if anyone has been "insulted" it would be me & using soft spoken 
words and playing the victim will not work with me... a fool that insist the 
doctor is foolish is not humble no matter how soft spoken he is..........it is 
just foolishness........wake up! although you appear incapable of seeing your 
foolishness....i will engage you as long as you wish to do so....not because i 
think i will convinve you but im more then comfortable letting posteritiy judge 
between the arguments you and Regner put forward vs the ones I put forward and 
deciding for itself which of the two was more

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 2:08:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  Allen D
  You said - From Allen Daves Sun May 25 16:05:33 2008
    Paul what you put forward quite simply neurotic, bipolar and schizoidfrantic
  This is just plain insulting. Withdraw it and I may address one or more of 
your points.
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 25 May, 2008 4:05:33 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  Demonstrate your position with observationsâ?¦.. but do not and you cannot 
assume the very thing you are attempting to demonstrate.....it is that 
simple!...I completely understand that you donâ??t like the "phrases" that i 
keep usingâ?¦ You still donâ??t see the difference between imagination and 
observation do you?!���... the tides are not thought experiments they are 
observationsâ?¦so is the Alias effect your "free fall" is not a observation it 
is a assumption about an inertial state that you are trying to 
demonstrateâ?¦the concept of ."free fall" as you use it is the very thing you 
are trying to prove you cannot just assume it it there��Now what is the 
observation that shows us that falling to the earth is the same as inertial 
neutralityâ?¦..hint there is none...... the fact that any and every 
acceleration that can be produced demonstrates a detectable effect even when 
objects begin to accelerate at gravity��.is not a thought experiment.. that 
is a fact!
 ..It is reproducible and consistent every time!...... Your arguments about 
free fall can only be made by assuming the very things you are trying to 
demonstrate in the first place v (the ordinary and plain observation of 
inertial rest) so as to convince folk that accelerations in "free fall" cant be 
detected but the way you use "free fall" is it self the assumption of the very 
thing you are trying to proveâ?¦.if there is no orbit then no free fall can 
exist! ..You assume the very thing you are trying to demonstrate!.. Secondly 
you don't seem to understand the difference between observed event and the 
explanation for why that event occurred .....The problem here is with your 
examples and how you use them..... Please explain to us exactly which "two 1 kg 
lead spheres will be in front, behind, or on a par with each other when passing 
perihelion" and how you know that as well as exactly how that proves why they 
behave that way.....? again you cannot make your argument without
 assuming your idea of why gravity works the way that it does and why or how it 
is related to inertia...in fact you must assume paul that gravity and inertia 
are related period... Paul that is what you are trying to demonstrate....you 
cannot first assume all those things in spite of observations to the contrary, 
to interpret the observations that supposedly validate that very thing you are 
attempting to demonstrate....it is called a circular 
fallacy.........Accelerations cannot be detectable and not detectable at the 
same time wrt the same exact bodies.....All the imaginations and explanations 
will never ever make that contradiction disappear.....if you want to show us 
how it is just an illusion then you must first demonstrate the observation that 
shows it to be an illusion not first assume it is an illusion by which we 
interpret what we see....how can you be so self contradictory and not see 
it......Your discussions are nor based in any attempt to figure things out your
 only trying to justify why what you believe is not realy "faith" and win a 
argument ...dam the observations...if i am wrong then you should have no 
problem demonstrating something without asking us to assume the very things you 
are trying to show us.......Paul what you put forward quite simply neurotic, 
bipolar and schizoidfrantic....by definitionâ?¦
    ----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 4:02:02 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

    Allen D
I have highlighted a number of phrases in your post which I've heard over and 
over and over and over and over and over and over ...
  Your posts have a depressing quality which conjure up visions of a "random 
buzz-phrase generator". It's like I'm not really talking to anybody -- it's 
just a computer program.
  You assert many things which you choose to remember as demonstrations. You 
choose to condemn my offerings as valueless 'thought experiments' while 
simultaneously assessing your 'thought experiments' as demonstrations.
  I'm tired of it.
  If you really wish to 'demonstrate' -- demonstrate which of the two 1 kg lead 
spheres will be in front, behind, or on a par with each other when passing 
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, 25 May, 2008 12:53:25 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  It is so simple I can demonstrate changes in acceleration in any and every 
Reference frame i can create or test...however your assertions that 
accelerations in free fall cannot be detected are not based on any thing in the 
lab ..it is only your imagination.....you must first demonstrate your positions 
before you claim your assumptions as proof of your assertions...... The logical 
contradictions are all yours...you canot demonstrate anything without first 
assuming your conclusions...where as we do not have any problems with taking 
data for what it is.....Again you must first demonstrate via a observation that 
the observation you wish to consider as a illusion is in fact a illusion first 
.....it is not logical to first assume it is a illusion and the use that 
assumption to interpret which observations you take as face value and which 
ones you take as "illusions"
  Your so wrong Paul and it is very sad that  you donâ??t seem even capable 
seeing your own inconsistencies.....i don't have a problem with what is shown 
in the lab..the problem is  .....the only things you attempt to use from the 
lab do not support your positions unless you first assume the very conclusions 
you are attempting to validate with those observations from the "lab" . You use 
your assumptions to interpret the data that tell you exactly what you want to 
here!?.......I find it humorous however sad that you cant see that you nor 
Regener never actually demonstrate anything. You Like Regner simply make 
assertions that make perfect sense but only if you assume the very conclusions 
you are trying to reach first!? Otherwise the things you can show at face value 
show a motionless earth centered universeâ?¦..because as I have already 
demonstrated accelerations even in free fall no mater what Physics construct 
you take can and are detectedâ?¦..You nor Regner have any place
 to hide in these debates��..so go think about it and come up with 
something coherent and consistent that can demonstrate a logical path to itâ??s 
conclusion that I have never heard beforeâ?¦

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 1:43:30 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  Allen D
  You said -
    .....i perfere what can be demonstrated in the lab not the logical 
contridictions of nonsense and fool myself into beliving it is somehow more 
  Yeu preffer a dimenstrushrn in thr labratty butt diselebive w hen it'''''s 
nud feel seize inda reele welrd!?!?!?!? What a contridtcion inn terims! A 
vetrible reservibel fo logacle sartintee .!.!.!.!.! a xempel fo cornfussed 
logacel miss aopilkatoin for gottin fings bakedrs cas of wot yew wonnerd toobee 
rite inna frest plase! Hah!? Reeeely!?
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 23 May, 2008 11:39:22 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of heliocentrism

  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

  Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

PNG image

Other related posts: