[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT)

1. first Me in black
  2 Your reponse in red
  3. My response to you ...Me in blue

philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
      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. 
  The laws themslevs are the questions you beg....your coment makes no 
sense..To observe a gyroscope does not tell you how they would not work in 
other frames of reference or prove or validate any theory as to whay that might 
be if you infact never observe that....you are getting the observation and the 
conclusion mixed up. 
  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. Sagnac and MM MG ect...only show 
motion or no motion within the only frame of reference where the experiments 
were ever performed. So to say that they would not show the same things in 
other frames of reference becasue all frames are equal begss the question even 
if it turned out to be true latter.
  .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.   Deducing a reason is not the same as 
imagining a reason.....If you observe a motion detection with a sagnac device 
that is called observation ..however you say well it is only applicable within 
a given frame of reference but not between frames of reference because light is 
isotropic and all frames are equal is not observable nor has it been 
experimentally demonstrated therefore it is imagination not a 
deduction.......having said that yes all deductions are not true even if they 
 arived at logicaly because until the matter is exhausted there can always be 
additional data that can come along that requires a better more informed 
deduction. However, deduction is a logical claim to process and conclusion or 
reason or theroy where imagination by definition is not! To simply invoke a 
reason as to why or how with out O&E when the O&E could only possibly 
demonstrate your reason/ theory by assuming the very reason/ theory you think 
that it shows is not logical it is imagination, even if it turned out to be 
true latter....look, discovery is a process if you pursue a logical path you 
can demonstrate the logical deductive points along the path and the conceptions 
between the points but in the case of imagined theories they only have any 
valid connections if you assume they are true first then interpret and apply 
that to everything with out sufficiency O&E to do so. A GC/GS earth requires no 
assumptions because you don?t observe or experience the alternitives
 via any experiment without begging the questions, where as in the case of a 
moving earth, that you do not observe or experience, it could be true but you 
can?t claim it logicaly plausable or reasonable external of observation or 
experience for it. Nor can you claim observation or experience for it by 
imagining that reason first but not actually observing or experiencing the 
reason itself. In the same way that to go out side as see a plane move across 
the sky does not lead one to say that he has O &E to conclude that he is moving 
or to make any other conclsion then that the plan is moving............. 
Therefore, regardless of what is ultimately the truth, in regard to the sun 
with just the information presently available to date at any time in history 
only the GC/GS position is a logically deduced path to start from and continue 
the discovery process from....

  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. 
    It is a hypotheses but it is not a reasonable hypotheses..you are confusing 
those two..to be reasonable it must be based on some observation or experience 
but the only O&E you keep mentioning do not show what you/they claim it shows 
without assuming it is true first,  where the alternative requires no 
assumptions except that you did in fact observe things move that way. You have 
no logical reason/O&E to suggest that it does not hold true throughout the 
Universe.....gravity inertia and centrifical force are not understood in HC 
without assuming HC/AC first! None of those things you keep appealing to 
(gravity inertia)define how or the why they (gravity inertia) work the way they 
do..... but those things(gravity inertia) keep getting explained and justified 
by the HC/AC  construct and then they like you attempt to use those very same 
things(gravity inertia) which were the question to begin with (how and why 
they, gravity inertia, work that way) to say see the AC/HC
 construct is plausible ??.Anything is "plausable" or "demonstratable" if you 
begg the very questions you seek to answer !?........Yes, if you could 
demonstrate it with out assuming it is true first..otherwise the only logical 
conclusion that can be demonstrated, without invoking circular fallacies, is 
that motion is real when you observe and or experience it not because you can 
imagine it...Illusions of motion are know via the same experience and 
observation process not just imagination!

  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, 
    Theories for reasons why and how things happen can be logically deduced or 
they can be imagined without any LOE as in the case of the aliens on other 
worlds that might be controlling the weather here on earth. It could be true 
and it is a theory but is it logically plausible or logically deduced? No one 
questions  the vlalidity of  the concept of "theories"  only the validtiy of 
the logic used to arive at a theory...your are confusing the concept of "a 
theory" with "a valid/logical theory" . Althought the term "theroy" itself is 
valid and a valid tool..... No, all theories are not logicaly valid or 
demonstratable and that is what I am addressing....To be plausible it must be 
logically valid or deduced first.. theories arrived at via circular fallacies 
do not constitute as logically valid ones and thus not plausible.

  will you agree that merely seeing the sun rise, does not constitute a proof 
that it is indeed the sun that is moving??  
  I have am/ have pointing out that it is "the" only logically deduced 
conclusion that can be demosntrated, that one can make.  Because you cannot 
reach any other conclusion without imagining what cannot or has not been 
observed or experienced. ....... Theoretically it could be the world or the sun 
    YES!......"Theoretically" the sun or the earth could be moving but only one 
of those theories/reasons (why things look they way they do) can be 
demonstrated as a logically deduced conclusion where the other cannot without 
invoking pure imagination first. .If you go outside look up and see something 
traverse from your left to your right ( could be a bird could be a plane could 
be a UFO) your first impulse is not "hey im moving" with out O& E that tells 
you that...... that would be foolish ......Now, what tells you the sun is not 
doing the moving without imagining it first?...It could be YES! But you cannot 
show a logical deductive path for such a conclusion even if it were true..... 
Therefore you can not claim that the theory that you are moving is the most 
plausible explanation for what you observe any more so then with a UFO or plane.
  What you seem to miss is that a theory and a logical deduction  do not follow 
each other automatically ..feel free to theorize what ever you like but 
"science" claims logical theories as the best ones and rightly so.  They just 
don?t always employ the logical ones, as with you they sometimes prefer 
imagination over logical deduction.... fine but don't call it reasonable or the 
most plausable there is no logic in that reason nor can you even show it any 
more plausable, wihout begging the questions, then you can the aliens that live 
in my attic as the theory and reason for all my troubles......
  As for "proof",  that alone ( the sun traverseing e-w) is certainly more 
"proof" then any theory that cannot be tested or observed by its own constructs 
without assuming those constructs first.... thus begging the questions. 
  "The truth" or a truthful discovery can be found by accident or guessing or 
imagining other things but you can't claim "proof" for that truth or "even" 
plausibility for a reason for why that is the truth external of a logicaly 
deductive processes regardless of whether or not you eventually hit the jackpot 
by some chance. 
  If you claim plausibility or proof then you can only do so with the evidence 
you have not with what you do not have or with evidence you can only imagine.. 
Is HC/AC a Theory?... YES!................ Are Theories and imagination usefull 
 tools?...YES!.......Are all Theories and imagination logically valid and or 
plausible? ......NO! ..............................know the difference!


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:     DIV {   MARGIN: 0px  }        
    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 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

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: