[geocentrism] Re: squabbles.
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:34:48 +0200
Thanks, Philip. I think it would be good if my rules have that effect.
And your other issue: Your are saying that you believe in a stationary
and immovable Earth in a heliocentric Solar system. I don't think that
is quite possible to have... Let's go back and apply some "discipline
in the composing.", shall we. Good try, though.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 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:
