[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 16:57:25 -0700 (PDT)

1. me originaly in black
  2 Philip's response
  3 my latest reply in blue

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 
  Absolutely not! You are failing to see my point, and what you say here, is a 
misconstruction of my point. If you believe the above then your case completely 
  That's exactly what you keep doing read your last post you mentioned those 
not me......otherwise there is no observation for HC or that makes HC plausable 
if so please tell us what it is...external of just imagination.
  "those things(gravity inertia) keep getting explained and justified by the 
  This is not true..  Gravity and inertia have nothing to do with and are not 
influenced by cosmology. We may use them to explain cosmology, but they existed 
and had to be explained and justified long before cosmology was thought of . We 
had the horse before the cart. 
  Gravity: the attraction between two masses. Demonstrated in the laboratory by 
having two masses suspended in a vacuum jar. Later experiment taken outside and 
showing the deviation of a plumb bob hanging down the face of a cliff towards 
the cliff. Nothing to do with planetary motions...  How does this indicate HC 
mechanics?  It does not imply anything except things attract it does not even 
tell you what casue that effect so how does this relate to the plausability of 
  Inertia..flywheels , and merrygorounds likewise.... When as a child beside 
the camp fire, I swung the billy full of boiling tea over my head with out 
spilling a drop, I would have known, had I been enclined to think about it, 
just how a satellite  would stay in orbit. And later as a space enthusiast I 
supported and accepted the theory of orbitting space stations, knowing they 
would work, and withstood the ridicule of the world who treated it as nonsense 
dreams. This would have been the case, even if the world was the centre, and 
the cosmos rotated around it. There is nothing in O& E that you have mentioned 
thus far that could even remotly suggest that it is not..while there is plenty 
that dose suggest it........The principles did not need heliocentrism to be 
true. Heliocentrism was a natural deduction from the principles already 
demonstrated. Realy? ..What priciples?...You just got through saying . and i 
quote."This is not true..  Gravity and inertia have nothing to do
 with and are not influenced by cosmology.We may use them to explain cosmology, 
but they existed and had to be explained and justified long before cosmology 
was thought of " 
  Justified how and by what ......That is the questions you are begging.....I 
did NOT imagine the sun was stationary.
    Doesn?t matter without O& E you can't  claim to have logicaly deduced the 
plausibility of any other construct imagiantion, theroy or otherwise..... sure 
you can imagine some other possibility just as you can with that airplane in 
the sky..... but the difference is plausibility based on LO&E not just 
imagining it....... simply imagining it does not make it plausible........ 
I KNEW it was holding on to a lot of billys full of tea, as they swung around 
it, just as old billy moon was held to the earth. I knew the calculations would 
have to show that the sun was a very heavy Mass to do that..  No imagination 
here, seeing as you prefer deduction.  Knowing what I knew as "reasonable 
deductive facts", this IS a reasonable deduction. In fact it would take a lot 
of imagination, more like fantasy, to consider geocentrism as an option.    You 
keep saying that but that is the question you keep begging. You ,as of yet have 
failed to demonstrate that HC/AC is even plausible without invoking circular 
fallacies with how mechanics could be if you assume that what you imagine is 
true rather then just sticking to what you actually observe/experience and not 
go beyond that, because that is all you have to build a logical case for 
plausibility in any case....... .. ..where i keep trying to point out that you 
only have GC observation and experience available to
 you..!? Again to suggest that there is HC/AC O& E can only be plausible if you 
assume that it is true first then interpret everything as an illusion because 
it could be an illusion and thus the most plausible....you still don?t tell us 
why the fact that it could be an illusion is the most reasonable explanation 
for O&E that are no different then the O&E of planes, UFO?s or birds. If the O& 
E are identical then how is the conclusion logically justified as being 
different without assuming something that you do not observe even though you 
can imagine it...!? Yes a theoretical model that can demonstrate the 
possibility of HC but I can do the same thing an show how it is the birds, 
planes and UFO?S and the clouds for that matter are all stationary......SO 
WHAT....!? You cant just assert that those observations and experience are 
fundamentally different for the other objects in the sky and call it the most 
logically plausible answer.........gravity inertia and any other laws
 only have meaning within the construct you choose because they don?t tell you 
why or how they work or what cause them... .if you do not know that you cant 
claim they demonstrate anything except that is how you observe things to 
behave. It does not demonstrate how I imagine it works or works...Give me a 
This is the reson we have to search for and prove supranormal possibilities, 
like the aether.  "supranormal" ?...... The aether can be logicaly deduced from 
experimentaly observed effects on light ..O&E...? 
  We don't need to talk about frames of reference. keep the discussion on basic 
  Well gee..if we take that approach we dont even need to talk about mechanis 
in order to discover the reasons why and what the mechanics are either ? Frames 
of refernce are what the whole HC/AC myth is built on to explain why the sun 
only looks like it is moving accross the sky but it is realy an 
illusion.....Gee wiz what relevant O&E do you want to talk about in this 
discovery process?...this is about as basic as it gets in terms of HC/AC V 
GC......Lets just  There is only one reference point.. Its here. That?s my 
point! and if we hold to what you suggest here then H/AC can't appeal to 
multiple RF...... if it cannot ................well even they would admit the 
whole HC/AC thing would fall apart real quick............If you want to stick 
to that great! ....I'll even let Phil Platt and or Einstien himself make the 
case........I suggest you read Mach's "The principle of mechanics" and 
"Principles of Relativity" the whole point is to define Multiple equivalent RF 
so as to,
 among other things, make light Isotropic in the universe so as to explain the 
Sagnac, MM, MG, whcih were and are "real" O&E, away.. .....RFs are not a side 
issue they are the issue........ Relative v Absolute.......
  Your methodology is damaging to the cause, because it lacks credible thought 
processing and smacks of flat earther reasoning. 
    No because you can actually O&E earths roundness......you can't actually 
O&E the universes isotropic nature...although you can imagine that ....

  PS I noticed the color rearranging you attempted.........................it's 
ok i fixed it :)

Other related posts: