[geocentrism] Re: Question begging
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:42:43 +1000
But Newton's laws are invalid for galactic rotation or should we say not
applicable. Newtons laws are valid mathmatical constructs, it is just the
presumptions surrounding their application that are debate-able..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 12:23 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
Paul,
Allen,
Kudos on now typing in a single case, color and font style... Paragraph
breaks still need some work J
My logic differs slightly from yours in length and focus:
HC logic:
If Newton's laws were valid, HC would be valid.
But Newton's laws are valid
So HC is valid.
GC logic:
If the aether were valid, GC would be valid.
But the aether is valid
So GC is valid.
But Newton's laws are invalid for galactic rotation and , if HC is valid,
then AC - relativity - cannot be valid.
So HC is invalid.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Allen Daves
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 12:04 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
Thats ok..but I think if you will read my postings again you will see that my
point is that the criticisms of HC reasoning can NOT be directly applied to GC
reasoning. All experiments to demonstrate the HC perspective have not been
successful without assuming that HC is true and thus requires additional new
physics to explain why things look like a duck quack like a duck but are only
"illusions" of what it theoretically could be....but just not really..? I will
keep trying to put it together for you in a consolidated and easy to understand
way in the next posting or two..I really think you are not that far from seeing
it ......I think it important to note that my arguments are primarily
addressing the methodology and logic of the process of discovery regarding the
mechanics, not the mechanics itself except indirectly... ..The criticisms of HC
only apply to HC and not GC because GC is the only and logical starting point
for all discovery not because we assume it is true(beg the question) but
because you must always start with what you have(where you are) not with what
you do not have ( where you are not)..you only have one frame of reference
that you can and have made real, actual, not make believe, experimentations and
observations from......If science is about real observations and experiments
then one must begin with that ..Now the observations and experiments that have
been performed do not demonstrate that the universe would look the same from
every other location in the universe without assuming that is true even though
it is not actually observed it is only imagined. They only show that we appear
to be at the center of the cosmos and there is no observation here on earth
that tells us it would or could look the same from any other location in the
universe that can only be imagined but not demonstrated ..The experiments with
light and motion do not suggest that there is no difference between frames of
reference unless you use the argument that since it does not show what we
expect then all frame must be the same again imagination used to interpret
observation, not observation itself... The theories that are used to explain
how or why the universe would look the same and light and motion would not be
affected by the frame of reference depending if it were in motion or not only
has any meaning if you assume that it is true first. But, that is the issue
that has not been proven and the question that must be addressed not merely
assumed. Those theories have absolutely no logical validity to them since you
can not prove or even demonstrate them without assuming they are true first and
then interpret the observations and experimentations using that assumption
which is the every thing you are trying to prove..!? The theories that are
used to interpret the universe as AC are not ones that are observed or
experienced they are only imagined first then used to developed theories as to
how and why that is true.. when you look at airplane over head your first
impulse is not "hey I am moving down here" without some other direct
observation/ experience that you are.. The same holds true here..we could all
be going around the sun but what tells us that ?..... some theory whose only
"proof" is the fact that if it were true then that would support that
theory..? That is not "science" that is imagination... IF you observe matter
centered on the earth as so far as you can observe it there is no other logical
conclusion that you can make then the earth is at the center a theory that
states every thing looks the same from every other location would be valid if
you in fact observed that but you don't so even if it were true you cannot
logically claim that is the case based on the fact that if some other theory
were true then it could explain why it only looks that way.how come this is so
hard for you? IF I conduct a experiment with a apparatus that can distinguish
between motion that I observe and no motion that I observe even if you wish to
say from my "frame of reference" How in the world can you claim that it shows
anything other then a difference between motion and non motion?.... To invoke
some theory that can not be tested by its own definition "all frames are equal"
begs the question how do you know all frames are equal ? How do you know
without observation and experience from other frames that you could not tell
what is moving out there ( in space) when you can down here(on earth)
..especially since there is nothing in what you do observe or experience down
here (on earth) that tells you that without assuming that's the case first.
What is the logic that demonstrates that you would not be able to see the
difference anywhere else if all the places that you perform those experiments
show that you can see the difference every place you make the attempt. What is
the observation and experience that tells you that that thing would not work
the same way it works here ( sagnac & interferometers ) ..To say that AC is the
most probable case and that they would not work the same because it would be
true and even necessary if AC were true is not science! ..it only begs the
questions. Why could it not work the same there as it does here? What do we
observer or experience that tells us that it would not work there? Since we
observe objects changing there appearance depending on your orientation to them
on earth ..what do we observe or experience here on earth, the only place we
have actually tested, that tells us things look the same out there no matter
what your orientation is? ..could it be true yes in theory but even if it were
true you have no logical reason for arriving to that conclusion only someone's
imagination that it is that way.only some theoretical construct that tells you
that but not actual observations or experience for the conclusion or even the
theories that are used to base the conclusion on. Without those it is not
science it is just imagination!
You can imagine that the universe looks the same from any frame of reference
and you can imagine that sagnac and inferometers would not do the same things
they do here on earth, the only place you have actually performed those
observations and experiments from. But, until you perform them in other places
there is no logical thought process that can led you to any other conclusions
then the conclusions that apply to at least the RF where you are. to say that
physics is so strange that light would not distinguish motion out there just as
it does here because you imagine that all frames are equal even though you have
never observed and or experienced that is not science nor is it a logical
conclusion even if it turned out to be true!
The bottom line is even if HC/AC were true it is not been accepted and
arrived at through a logically valid deductive process.. where GC is the only
possible logically deduced conclusion that one can arrive at based on what we
have not what we do not have. This is true to date and at any time in history.
It is therefore the only logical path to and for discovery that can be pursued.
"Logic dose not dictate what is truth is but truth cannot be reasoned
external of logic"
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen D
I felt a bit guilty about that post in retrospect. But Allen -- I only get a
fraction of what you say almost every time. I feel I need the services of
Bletchly Park! It really is most frustrating.
I didn't get an answer to the request I'm afraid. However, I didn't actually
expect to. My point really was that most of the criticisms of HC reasoning can
be directly applied to GC reasoning -- if your mind is open. There are no
certainties in this game -- only probabilities. If there were certainties, the
game would be over!
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 21/03/2007
7:52 AM
Other related posts:
