[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:08:09 -0700 (PDT)
We woke up in a world where things appear to move around us we had and have no
sensation of movement itself?That is where this whole question of earths
movement must and did begin???everything moving around me??.from that point a
process of observation and experience then proceeds to ascertain what is and is
not moving?.well those experiments which were to make that distinction did and
showed that we are in deed not moving the observations of mass centered on the
earth also promote the earths centrality of that position as well....... you
cannot interpret those observations and experiments in light of a HC framework
because that is what those experiments and observations are all about ?this is
your circular fallacy? those who developed and concocted those experiments and
observations were not assuming a earth centered universe..(they were not
invoking a circular fallacy when they developed & performed them) a earth not
in motion is exactly what they show and the only thing
that those observations demonstrate without invoking the circular fallacies of
earths movement first?It amazes me that you cannot see just how ridiculous your
argument is and the fact that the only way to even begin to interpret data as
consistent with HC is to assume that HC is preferred.. there is no experiment
conducted on earth with regard to gravity or anything else that demonstrates
anything other then what the initial observations and experiments things
moving around you without invoking the HC circular fallacy first?..HC is not
logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you
do not have is real??your posting makes no sense without assuming that it is
preferred first. which is what everything that led up to and including today?s
model of HC was developed to prove in the first place,,,the problem is that
nothing ever did without assuming that HC was the preferred conclusion to begin
with which is what it is trying to prove..!??..why
is this so hard for you guys to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness..?
until you have a observations and experience for earths movement your position
is as plausible as aliens & adductions.............they might be true they
might not.......thus we should build our lives around the "fact" they are the
most reasonable and plausible .... explanation for all unknown
Phenomena...!??..your arguments and examples are in fact examples not of HC's
plausibility but rather foolishness of the highest order...demonstrate or
concede but don't use GC's evidence for HC by begging the question that HC is
preferred...because until you have that evidence for HC all the evidence
supports GC without assuming anything starting with the very first observation
ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of
movement?.....all subsequent Observations and experiments have been consistent
with that but not one has shown itself to be for HC without assuming HC is
preferred first which is the question you begg and the circular fallacy you
without fail must invoke!
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Philip M
May I compliment you on an excellent summing up of this issue. I trust that
my support will not dilute it.
I'd like to add a few things also if I may. To --
Bernie B and Marc V
-- you are labouring under a mis-aprehension concerning zero gravity at an
altitude of 22,000 miles (give or take). The acceleration of gravity extends to
infinity and can be calculated from the product of the Universal Gravitational
Constant and the two masses divided by the square of the distance between the
centres of gravity of the two masses -- in maths terms -
a = Gm1m2/d^2
Secondly, if you go to
http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpgravity/gravity_acceleration_equation_radius.php
you will find on line calculators for the above expression under Newton's Law
of Gravity. To calculate orbital periods for any two bodies, just below that,
you'll find Kepler's third law. To use these calculators, you'll need certain
parameters and these you can find at http://www.nineplanets.org/data1.html and
http://www.nineplanets.org/data.html. Remember that the height above sea level
means nothing here, it is the distance from the centre of gravity that you
need. Everything you need can be found to calculate orbits for any satellite of
Earth (or other body if you are interested) on these two sites.
If you can be bothered, you might find it constructive to generate a list of
orbital periods for a range of values of say, from 100 miles out to the Moon
and plot them on a piece of graph paper. You'll see that a regular curve will
be shown -- just the way you would expect an ordered universe to behave. You
may care to plot on the same coordinates, the data given by geocentric sources
to see how a disordered universe behaves.
You can also plug in the values quoted for a given orbiting object, from the
shuttle to the Moon, and verify that the values obtained are as quoted. You
will of course find that the orbital period obtained for the Moon will not be
the 24h 52m that you observe, but rather the 27d 7h 43m (av) sidereal period
which of course is different from the time between successive New Moon
appearances which is 29d 12h 44m (av).
Have fun!
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
