[geocentrism] Re: squabbles.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:05:43 +1000
If this is the best you can do, I don't think
geocentricity has much of a future, (Regner)
I think that your rules, all three of them, have forced some to put on their
thinking caps Regner. You picked the three main weaknesses of most of us here,
which for compliance, will require some discipline in the composing.
I imagine you may be able to rest for a while.
On another issue.
I support and agree with all of the 5 points that Paul D made, including his
preamble wherein he says, "Note however that disproof of one does not prove the
other." if he meant it both ways. I do not accept that they are mutually
exclusive. I firmly believe that the geocentrist position, i.e. that the earth
is stationary and immovable, is fully compatible with all 5 points he made. In
fact it is essential that they be so, or the basic fabric of our science
becomes a fantasy like the hollow earth and other ratbag offerings.
Philip.
Paul said: Regner T
I do not support Geocentrism -- I do support Heliocentrism.
These two theories are mutually exclusive -- if you prove one, you disprove the
other.
Note however that disproof of one does not prove the other.
I offer five propositions which suggest to me that the Heliocentric model
offers the more accurate explanation.
1. Kepler's three planetary laws explain how the Solar System works and
satisfy observation;
2. Newtonian physics explains why Kepler's Laws work;
3. The observed behaviour of gyroscopes et al is adequate demonstration that
the Earth rotates on its axis;
4. The observed six monthly variation between red and blue shift of stellar
spectra is adequate demonstration that the Earth revolves around the Sun;
5. When appropriate allowance is made for the Earth's rotation and
revolution, various endeavours succeed. These include -
a. Fuel estimates for satellite launches are adequate;
b. Ballistic missiles and artillery shells hit their intended targets;
c. The exquisite precision required for successful inter planetary
navigation is achieved.
Paul D
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: squabbles.
Sifting through 28 postings with the heading
"Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?"
I found only one entry to add to the list!
If this is the best you can do, I don't think
geocentricity has much of a future, and I would
have to conclude that I waisted my time. Please
prove me wrong.
Regards,
Regner
Quoting Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Thanks, Philip
>
> - Regner
>
> Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > All, perhaps it might help in this period if one changed the subject line
> > when squabbling about something, and reserving the main theme subject ,
> >
> > "Is geocentrism supported by the facts" for nothing other than the 5
> > responses Regner requested.
> >
> > Meantime Steven, this thunderbird email client which filters the mail into
> > slots, interests me very much. Can you tell me more about how to get it.
> >
> > Regner did not specifically ask for geocentric supporting facts. His
> actual
> > words were,
> >
> > "I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the
> > 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct. "
> >
> > Pauls theory, and mine differ from Allens. They will all go into the
> melting
> > pot of Regners summary for discussion, thats if any sort of coherent
> > consensus for geocentrism emerges. So far not so good.
> >
> > Philip.
>
>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.1/1078 - Release Date: 18/10/2007
5:47 PM
Other related posts:
