[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:09:10 +1000

My interpolations  Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Allen Daves 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 1:18 AM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  Theories take prescience over others based on Observation and experience that 
is "Science" 101 AKA the "Scientific method".....It is just that HC has no 
Observation or experience without assuming AC is true first that is why it is 
not a logically valid path to pursue...This is not true Allen. And I suspect 
you wriggle and change what you call observation. You began with seeing the sun 
cross the sky. Now you accept that gyros observe physical motion, yet you 
refuse to acknowledge the physical laws by which they work. These laws have 
nothing to do with the cosmos or the sun. 

  If experiments and observations had been made from other frames of reference 
that did show that all frames are equal that would be one thing but the only 
experiments ever conducted do not show that it can only be imagined as true and 
what's worse it is trumped up as being the most plausible..Could you be more 
specific as to what you are referring to here. 

  .Philip that ? makes no sense whatsoever if you are going to support a theory 
as logical or more plausible then at least in Science you are supposed to go 
where the evidence Leeds you not where you imagine the evidence could be 
going....how can this be so hard to understand?........I'm having exceeding 
difficulty understanding. I do not know what you are accepting as evidence, and 
what you are rejecting. Imagining a reason for the evidence is the normal 
process of theoretical reasoning. 

  This concept is not only understood by MS it is even stated as a demand of 
MS..... the thing is they just don't practice it, all I am doing is showing you 
that they don't and how you can know and see that. I doubt MS would know what 
it is you were saying, or what it has to do with centrifugal force, orbiting 
bodies, mechanics, and gravity, all of which here on earth experimental 
demonstration, without recourse to any sun, clearly support the hypotheses that 
the solar system must have the sun as a centre. This is a reasonable 
hypotheses, and it is unfortunate that in a Godless world such a hypotheses is 
the more generally accepted one. 

  However this consensus in no way proves that such hypotheses is the truth. MS 
in the name of Einstein who also has a considerable following in MS, who from 
relativity shows a discontinuity with Newtonian physics by including space time 
drag, which to me is a fine base from which to interpolate an aetheric effect 
to explain inertia. This alone throws the whole of HC as a reality into doubt, 
and allows for the other hypotheses of GC to have a reasonably higher 

  However this in no way means throwing out the HC model, if for no other 
reason than it works in practise. 

  I have the same attitude to the convention as regards electric current 
flowing from positive to negative, even though this is almost  note almost 
certain to be not true. 

  But back to your problem, er my problem with you.. simple yes or no. 

  Now that you can theorise, will you agree that merely seeing the sun rise, 
does not constitute a proof that it is indeed the sun that is moving??   
Theoretically it could be the world or the sun moving. 


  philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
    But Allen you do not allow any theoretical construct s  because they are 
mere imagined possibilities for an explanation. If you are allowed to imagine a 
theory based upon what you see, so also must I and anyone else be allowed to 
imagine alternatives. Theories are not facts, as I have repeatedly told Paul. 
and you cannot demand that your theory is to take precedence over any other. 

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Allen Daves 
      To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:31 AM
      Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

      Trial & error is useful for finding things that work. Or even conducting 
experimentations..... but the issue here is theoretical constructs of how or 
why it works and the logical paths for discovery of that issue, not the fact 
that sagnac or other inferometers do in fact work and it was not know before 
hand that they would or do. I don't have a problem with trial and error most of 
what we have is from that but trial and error dose not address the issue and 
certainly does not prove a theoretical construct nor does it ascertain the 
proof of why something works that was found by trail and error. Trial and error 
only give you a shortcut if you happen to stumble across one to the work itself 
not the how or why it works unless you by other trial and error seek to 
discover that. Even then you still only have the observations and experience 
available to you for making or deducing conclusions you cannot beg the 
questions to prove the very questions you are begging and claim it logically 
valid conclusion(s). ,................ 
      To conduct any observation or experiment that it is designed to indicate 
a motion or a position such that it does indeed indicate that observably, to go 
on and make a conclusion that while it is true here it is only true here but 
not anywhere else even though we have not tested that without a having 
performed it anywhere else or an observational reason for such a statement is 
not logically valid... Therefore even if it were true there is no logically 
valid thought process based on LOE that can be claimed for having reached such 
a conclusion.

      Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
        Allen D
        You basic position seems to me to be that formal logic is the only 
method of resolving a proposition, or that failing to include its use, will 
result in failure. This leads to the ridiculous position of grown men sitting 
around wasting their time debating how many teeth a horse has and seriously 
expecting that the matter might be satisfactorily resolved.
        Logic is a useful tool, but it is by no means the only tool. Trial and 
error for instance works. It requires no skills in logic, maths, expression or 
a hundred other skills. But though it is inefficient, none the less, it works. 
And there are many other ways to resolve propositions.
        Now you could make a giant advance in your understanding of life, the 
universe and everything if you would give a simple answer to Philip's question 
-- are you standing on world A or world B? This is a proposition which does not 
require the use of abstruse esoteric formal logic, or complex maths, or a 
Shakespearean command of English. It does however require a desire to arrive at 
a resolution. Give it a try.
        Paul D
        PS I'm not deliberately dodging the issues you've raised -- we can 
return to those. What I'm trying to do is to get you to see that this rarefied 
logical approach you've used on this forum for the whole of the time I've been 
here -- simply isn't working. It may work among others who share your approach, 
but it isn't working here. The aphorism concerning cats and the manner of 
skinning them, is relevant.

        Send instant messages to your online friends 


      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


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 22/03/2007 
7:44 AM

Other related posts: