As far as I know, the Newtonian concept of attraction (action-reaction) of masses at long distance is similar to the concept of macro-evolution vs micro-evolution (or variations). While this concept of attraction is scientifically valid at short distance, there is no scientific proof to validate the same concept for long distances. What seems to me more probable is that there is a limit (in distance) in which a mass can affect other masses. For exemple, the limit for the Earth would be at the altitude of the GS satellites. Outside of that limit, there is no action-reaction possible, not at all.
The heavier masses of the Sun and (perhaps) the stars orbiting the Earth is no problem in the true concept of attraction.
Christus Imperat, Marc Veilleux
From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question Begging
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:53:54 +1000
Its not begging the question.. simple logic that a lighter mass orbits a larger heavier mass, and not the reverse, as easily demonstrated on earth, tells us that heliocentric cosmology is the most probable, and rational explanation. The contrary which appears irrational and against natural laws as we experience them is much more difficult to justify, requiring extremely different approaches.If it were not for the Bible and the Word of God, none of us here would ever have any reason to doubt the MS explanation unless of course we were of the flat earth variety. Yet even here I am unfair. Some of the scientific proofs offered at the time, which I have read concerning the flat earth were extremely ingenious, and still fool me. Neville reminded me of it in his description of the working of the resolution of the human eye.That (heliocentric cosmology) is the "stumbling block" which "confounds the wise.....that seeing they shall not perceive" .We have no justification in condemning the wisdom of the world, given that they do not receive the Grace of this perception, which puts we who are the fools, on the right and true course. Yet given that, we have not arrived at any scientific proof that is any more reasonable than that which MS has proposed.Perhaps that is the wisdom of God, that they must find their own way, without any co-ercion from us.Philip.----- Original Message -----From: Allen DavesSent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:57 AMSubject: [geocentrism] Re: Question BeggingExcellent.....since there is no Observation or experience that the earth is moving without assuming that the earth is indeed moving (begging the question) therefore the only logical course to begin from is a model earth absent of movement and then attempt to prove or demonstrate any movement if any?..of course all the experiments would lead one to the conclusion that is in fact not in motion without begging the question.....It is only via the assumption of its movement which was never demonstrated to begin with that one can even begin to explain away the observations and experience that are consistent with the only logical positions to start from namely that the earth is without any demonsratable motion ??..therefore to assume that the earth does in fact move is to build upon a foundation of sand and or suggest that it is or must be moving because it could be in some theoretical and or imaginational framework and then to call it science is not only a circular fallacy but is......well quite silly!
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:To beg the question: to pass over or ignore a question by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume as proven the very thing one is trying to prove.or:To pass over or ignore the question of"is the Earth moving" by assuming it to be established or settled; to assume that the Earth is moving when trying to disprovethat the Earth is not moving.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date: 15/03/2007 11:27 AM
