[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
Allen
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
fails.
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
HC/AC"
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
HC..?
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
break!
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...?
Philip
PS
We don't need to talk about frames of reference. keep the discussion on basic
mechanics..
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.
plm
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:
