[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
"In a AC frame work any reference point can be chosen and it will be
equivalent to any other" Allen
But that is modern science hokus pokus.. You cannot have two reference points
moving away from each other at different speeds, and say that their realities
are equally true realities or equivalent.. There is a standard real true static
point which even though no man can discern it, this in no way is proof that it
does not exist. Equivalent frames are mathematical concepts , not realities.
You are right it is "modern science hokus pokus.."
The assertion that all frames are equal in relativity/AC world view comes
from MS not me!
I was not arguing that all frames are equivalent .... I was pointing out that
1.Those are the two possibilities of motion in "science" you have to argue
from depending on what side you stand on relativity/AC/HC v Absolute/GC.........
2.Of those two possibilities, regardless of which one you like the most there
is only one Logical deductive path and conclusion that can be demonstrated with
the information available now as well as at any time in history ...starting
with what you have not with what you do not have... what you have is the earth
as the only frame of ref you can observe from or experience anything
with......that deductive path is entirely consistent with GC and entirely
inconsistence with HC/AC
3. At no time can or could HC/AC theory be demonstrated with any observation
or experience without begging the questions first, regardless of which of those
two positions you personally like or favor the most.
The Central issue here I address is the methodology used to understand/
discover the mechanics not so much what the mechanics are itself except by
proxy.
Here it is again.....
You are so very close.........you state......"There is no fixed point of
reference and Thus one is assumed"..and Bernie pointed out the quote ..."But
the reality is a presumption in both cases". But the subtlety of point that
both statements overlook is that in a AC frame work any reference point can be
chosen and it will be equivalent to any other, (The original HC positions was
on hokie ground as well)... now in the GC frame work the earth is considered
the fixed point of reference ...regardless, what is missed is that LOGICALLY
you must begin with what you have not what you do not have...... YOU ARE ON
EARTH! therefore the logical without regard for theory or assumptions you begin
with where you are not where you imagine you could be or what is to start
from!........... In either case the earth as the fixed point of reference to
begin the discovery process is the only logical position from which any
discovery can start and any claim can be made from....... the problem
is that the switch from that logical starting point Earth to the AC view is
not consistent with observation or experimentation available to man at any time
though out the discovery process without assuming that HC/AC is the preferred
construct.......can??t you see!?.. That was the whole point of the discovery
process itself!!.......so HC/AC can not claim any logical reason for accepting
or perusing HC/AC without interpreting the observations and experiments by
assuming the very thing they were/are attempting to prove..circular fallacy!
.....yes you must start with what you have not with what you do not have the
only frame of reference available to you is EARTH!!!!...it is impossible to
logically begin with or jump to any other reference frame except in
imagination...yes experiments could be performed on the moon or mars but they
have not!....all the actual experiments and observations that can be performed
on relative motion and such here on earth (the only logical
starting point to begin in from) all show that motion measured at the Earth
can distinguish between relative motion and real motion as defined from that
reference point (the earth..the only ref point we have) that is the only
reference point that has actually been tested and thus there is no logical
reason that one can conclude that it proves anything other then there is a
difference between real motion and relative motion at least all motions
actually measured not just imagined......the experiments were specifically
designed to show a result regardless of frame of reference........It did not
show what they thought it would but not because the experiment or underlying
physics was ever demonstrated at fault but because they assumed a conclusion
that was only imagined not observed it was only then that they invoked a New
physics to support a alternative conclusion which was already assumed but not
proven...you like them have fallen into the circle of fallacy by assuming
something that only has meaning if its ultimate conclusions are true and
assumed first but that is the whole point of using them is to prove the very
thing they are attempting to underlie...Can??t you see?....There is and was
never any logical reason based on observations or experimentation to
1. Leave GC view
2. Pursue HC/AC particularly with the observations and experience available
at any time in any generation
without assuming the HC/AC conclusion first and then interpreting all the
Observations and experience to prove the very thing they were supposed to
distinguish for us...you have already done that by assuming it is plausible or
preferred first, but you have not shown why except to say it could
be..!?........The logical conundrum that this HC/AC method had produced is
ironic in the sense that due to the progression of that flawed logic and
acceptance of the HC/AC paradigm they have created a since that even if HC/AC
were the truth you could not prove it by its own "logical" constructs..in fact
there is no possibility of proving anything absolute in a relativistic
environment, the subtly that you miss as well as it does not nor can it prove
that the earth is not the Central point or motionless in space...its not even
trying to..... it is only trying to perpetuate the myth that accepting the
illogical methodology used to get from GC to HC was logical and then therefore
nothing can really be proven .....once you understand this then you will be
able to see that without begging the original questions of motion first HC/AC
is not even plausible except in imagination!.... Even is HC/AC were true it is
so far removed from observation and experience you could not prove it even if
it were true...If observation and experience are not interpreted in light of a
conclusion it is supposed to support then the only thing that is left logically
is the conclusion that either the earth is at center motionless or the
alternative cannot be proven and thus logically untenable in any
case.....therefore the only logical path to pursue is the one we have had from
the beginning of the discovery process the earth is the fixed point of
reference regardless of what ever else you could imagine as true because even
if it were true it is not demonstrable...the only demonstrable premise that can
be shown as so far as anything can be shown to be true is the Earth is
THE FIXED reference point in the Universe..and that is exactly what all
observations and experience show if nothing other is assumed!
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: in a AC frame work any
reference point can be chosen and it will be equivalent to any other Allen
But that is modern science hokus pokus.. You cannot have two reference
points moving away from each other at different speeds, and say that their
realities are equally true realities or equivalent.. There is a standard real
true static point which even though no man can discern it, this in no way is
proof that it does not exist. Equivalen frames are mathmatical concepts , not
realities.
Philip.
Other related posts:
