[geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:15:13 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
I appreciate you hold your view on all these matters on the basis of evidence
which you find convincing. Similarly, I hold to my position on a similar basis
but of opposing viewpoint. I have had occasion to applaud some of your points
and you have been kind enough to support some of mine. I think we understand
each other. It would not bear any fruit to dissect your arguments, addressing
each in depth so I won't.
However there were a couple which I found interesting so I'll slip a comment or
three in below in colour.
In my defence, this was not carefully thought out and planned -- I just wrote
it down as it came to mind.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May, 2008 2:00:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Paul said.
"Your side has resolutely dug in its heels and refused to change position with
the state of knowledge but instead bases its position on distinctly minority
interpretations of biblical text, backed up with attacks on science by
exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
Wash your mouth out! That is not true! You are mean mean mean.. (Ah la
Boston Legal LOL) OK see below for the specific errors you make.
1. "dug in its heels and refused to change position with the state of
knowledge" ..
Nonsense.. We just went with the minority view which took a different path
circa 1900, and have taken on board heaps of new knowledge from both sides of
science with many changes of perspective since then. Am I not evidence of that?
2. "but instead bases its position on distinctly minority interpretations of
biblical text,"
Minority interpretation? Among todays population perhaps. But God and the Bible
would be intrinsically false to itself, if it were not true then , the same
today and as tomorrow. So yes we are conservative. Thus if you were to take our
view with the view held over the last 2000 years, it is certainly not a
minority.
3. "backed up with attacks on science "
Who is attacking whom? Just take the secular non-religion based movie "global
warming Swindle" This was a purely defensive scientific production against a
politically influenced scientific group. And just how much was it and those in
it attacked, banned and prohibited. Public pressure alone forced the ABC to air
it, and wow.. Was that a favourable attack? Whereas we on the religious side,
merely select science on the basis of long standing traditional interpretation
of scripture, and face attacks for doing so.Ah! Yes -- what bothers me is the
expression "... select science on the basis of ... " [emphasis mine]
Why? Perhaps it is because we do claim that modern interpretation of the bible,
and modern interpretation of the philosophy of physics has it roots in
antagonism of religion, however well concealed this may be, the former being a
direct result of the influence of the latter. I think this is a bit unfair. It
is easy when others take a view different from our own -- possibly cherished --
views to assume that we are being attacked. But while the position taken can
readily be shown to be threatening, this is overwhelmingly a result of just the
conflict of ideas and underwhelmingly the result of deliberate attack.
4. "by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly
any unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
You mean of course exploiting the areas of uncertainty, and not the reducing
thereof.
This is a twofold error of thinking on your part. If I were to question the
corpuscular theory EMR in favour of the wave/aether theory of propagation, it
is not exploitation, but a valid scientific method of debate. It is not our
valid scientific question that causes the charge of exploitation, but the well
advertised religious convictions of the persons putting forward the arguement.
The aether tends towards God, ( ha ha , joke) The corpuscular theory tends
against God. ( very good theory that)
Which leads us to the second part of the error. You said,
"reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena
(anomalies)."
Let me ask you.. What do you think is the proportion of what is certain in
science to that which isuncertain. I would think we have lots and lots of
uncertainty to "exploit" er hm I mean discuss, question and explore; and lots
of that is in most of the consensus accepted scientific theory as certain. I'm
not too sure that anyone genuinely infused with the principles of science would
claim that anything was truly certain. Certainly I do not. But there
are aspects of science which generate great confidence.
No aether? Is that certain.. ? Of course not.. It may have a majority of
consensus, but even you know that consensus is obtained by peer affiliation,
and is not scientific certainty.
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)." Facts just the same. And should be
"exploited". Or do you support sweeping them under the carpet. I won't wait
till the end of the paragraph (let my impatience witness my urgency) NO NO NO!
To a first order of approximation, every reasonable objection should be
investigated. I realise 'reasonable' is interpretable. I also assert that
'investigated' does not imply 'investigated perpetually'. Now if a modernist
comes up with an "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE" to dispense with these annoying bugs,
its not exploitation , is it, ? Just valid science...
OK just a final word on the modernist religious movements or "churches" who
have allowed the infection of modern science to sway them from the traditional
interpretations..
Luke18- 8...But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you,
faith on earth? ..
John14 30 For the prince of this world: cometh: and in me he hath not any
thing.
Jesus was talking about the latter times , the last days, when the Prince of
the world, (of science ) rules most hearts and minds. They (the churches) had
their warning, and chose the wrong side. Quite a big lift for the minority
view, don't you think?
Don't think Paul, that we do not have a big battle to stay true to faith
against such a powerful and concerted opposition.People in general are truely
frightened to go against the tide. Hence consensus is easy to manipulate. From
grade school onwards one is laughed out of the class if he dares to question
the facts the teacher espouses.. And the whole class laughs with the
teacher..
Yet because modernism is built on so much uncertainty, our ability to see
this, makes the task so much easier.. In fact I am amazed that we are such a
small minority.. Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:19 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen D
Allen -- you really must read more carefully. You said -
I still dont know what your postion is now....
I said (in part) -
Since your position is that you don't consider that the tides are caused by the
Sun/Moon and I do, ... [Emphasis added]
I'm beginning to regret making this point. It was in part a small light-hearted
test to see if you were awake and comprehending.
I accept your position that you make statements which assume the position you
are arguing against and that is a valid tactic, but it is always safer to make
that point.
Now considering the tides, I don't agree that your hypothesis that if the tides
are caused by the Moon/Sun gravity, that this demonstrates that acceleration --
specifically in this instance the varying acceleration during the time of one
elliptical orbit -- means that that acceleration is detectable by an
accelerometer. Regner has disagreed with you on this point, and both Philip and
myself -- poor though our efforts may be in comparison -- have strenuously made
the same point. Your unwillingness to address the reasoning behind my attack --
distilled down to the proposition of the red sphere and the green sphere --
just scream vulnerability and thus error. Your response -- or rather, no
response -- confirms me in that view.
You also said -
... you state you dont accept the standard deffintions of grav, inerita,
velocity ect ...
What I said was -
Fourth, I do accept the standard definitions of gravity and inertia, velocity
and speed, mass and weight etc [Emphasis added]
My position re the Earth moving in an orbit -- the Heliocentric model -- was
developed, like so much of human knowledge, by noticing that the current model
has short comings. I don't know the origins or the parentage of the round disk
on the elephant on the swimming turtle's back idea, but someone noticed that it
had shortcomings. Again I admit ignorance, I don't know how many iterations
occurred before Aristotle stated -- and his statement was believed until the
renaissance -- that the Sun, the Moon and the planets and the stars and the
comets -- actually I'm not sure about the comets -- orbited the Earth. In fact,
if I recall correctly, the church was of the opinion that EVERYTHING orbited
the Earth. Somewhere in the interval that this theory held sway, the planetary
distances were 'determined'. Enter Galileo, who noticed the phases of Venus
which, if true, meant that the distances were wrong or there was some other
error -- calamity. Enter Tycho. What
if the planets orbited the Sun which orbited the Earth. Problem solved. Then
Galileo, not satisfied with pointing out the Venus discrepancy, announced that
something was orbiting Jupiter. Calamity. Further, astronomers noticed that
planets were not where they were predicted to be. Calamity compounded. Enter
Copernicus. If the Sun is at the centre, the system becomes simple, and
intriguing ratios emerge.
Is it true? You say no but I disagree and that's why we're here. Enter Newton.
He explains certain laws of physics, which, if true, support Copernicus. Your
side disagreed and still disagree but have offered no alternative theory which
fits observations, and especially have offered no supporting physics.
The science which has emerged since the renaissance, has recognised that there
is precious little proof -- if any -- and is satisfied with progressively
refining both our state of knowledge and its accuracy and thus increasing
our degree of confidence in our theories. Your side has resolutely dug in its
heels and refused to change position with the state of knowledge but instead
bases its position on distinctly minority interpretations of biblical text,
backed up with attacks on science by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of
uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena (anomalies).
So we too have proposed a solution to the problem "How does the World go?" --
that put forward by the four giants of this saga -- and it has been rigorously
tested. With every test passed, confidence grows. It's not certainty, but life
isn't certain. If I had to choose a path to orbit in a rocket designed, built
and operated by Geocentrists or one designed, built and operated by
Heliocentrists, I would much prefer to put my trust in the Heliocentrist model.
If they each were share companies, I'd choose the Heliocentrist company in
which to invest because the Geocentrist company would waste so much fuel
getting to orbit, they probably wouldn't pay a dividend.
So you see, there is no reason why one shouldn't propose a solution and then
test it. Even if you have no idea what you're on about, eventually you'll get
it right and you do it bit by bit learning as you go. You don't need rigorous
logical certainty or biblical backing. But the approach you -- Allen --
propose, that of getting everything to the last detail logically verified and
plans (unalterable plans) drawn up for a rocket ship and an unalterable
navigation philosophy before making a single triumphant journey is a pipe
dream. At the end of the day what counts is not philosophy and not logic --
it's enterprise, and the the test is its utility.
Closing thought. With your overriding preoccupation with logic -- what was the
logical justification for Tycho putting the planets around the Sun? Or did he
simply assume something and claim success on the basis of having already
thought up the idea? Sort of a logical circular fallacy.
Paul D
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
Other related posts:
