Fake Kabbala Universe

[AntiPharisee]

More: http://earthdeception.googlepages.com

 Moving-Earth DECEPTION!

The Cosmic Fight to the Death between two RELIGIOUS Creation Scenarios.          True, NON-HYPOTHETICAL Science ( observational data, our senses, physical experiments, and logic )   CONTRADICT the assertions of Mainstream Science's existing State-funded Model of the Universe derived from the Mystical Zohar/Kabbala of the Pharisee religion. Moreover, the Intelligible Christian Bible's voluntarily-funded Geocentric/Geostatic Model of the Universe Proclaims: The Sun Orbits the Earth daily and . . .

             . . . The Earth is NOT Moving!!

                                                    Facts:  ( by Marshall Hall ):
       
- "There is NO proof that the Earth rotates on an "axis" daily and orbits the sun annually. None.
- All calculations for eclipses, the space program, navigation, satellite movements - anything that demands precision and accuracy - are based on a non-moving Earth. Boiled down, heliocentric math is the same as Geocentric [ also called Geostatic ] math.
- NO EXPERIMENT HAS SHOWN THE EARTH TO BE MOVING ( much less at
30 times rifle bullet speed in solar orbit and at 250 times RBS around a galaxy. One would think such speeds would flap one's collar a little even if the "science" establishment says no! )
- Multiple experiments have shown the Earth to be stationary.
- Revisionist history reveals the roles that Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Sagan et al have played in foisting this LIE on mankind.
- The logic against a moving Earth is overpowering.
- WORLD-CLASS astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said take your pick between the two models.
- Copernicanism paved the way for Darwinism ( which then spawned Marxism, Freudism, Einsteinism and Saganism. )
- Star speeds are not a problem when the thickness of the universe is seen to be what it really is, that is, LESS than half a light day thick ( 8 billion mile radius ).
- NASA's space program is labelled "Origins Research" and costs taxpayers mega-bucks. Computerized telescopes are programmed to send back "synthesized images". The "image warper" permits "geometric transformations" while "origins technology... configures the multiple small mirrors..."  in these telescopes. Talk about a con job!
- The Bible says The Earth is NOT Moving and cannot be moved. What'll it be folks? False science as the source of absolute truth... or God's Word?"      

More: http://earthdeception.googlepages.com

[Anonymous]

Ah yes this stuff I have seen from WUFYS... "God" eh... well interesting to say the least, but do not start bringing in "God" based "evidence" into the forum as a point of absolute fact and reality.  I can tell this place is not for you in terms of what you consider as a valid source of information, but maybe you can provide factual information related to our current situation that doesn't involve proving something using the logical fallacy of appealing to authority i.e. "God", that is based on a book... and I could go on.

Otherwise, welcome to TIU  I hope you can contribute some good information in further posts.

[AntiPharisee]

Since there is no observation or experience that the Earth is moving without assuming that the Earth is indeed moving
( begging the question ) therefore the only logical course to begin from is a model of the Earth absent of any movement and then attempt to prove or demonstrate movement, if any. Of course all the experiments, without begging the question, would lead one to the conclusion that the Earth is in fact not in motion. It is only via the assumption of its movement, which was never demonstrated to begin with, that one can even begin to explain away the observations and experience that are consistent with the only logical positions to start from, namely that the Earth is without any demonstrable motion. Therefore to assume that the Earth does in fact move is to build upon a foundation of sand and to suggest that it is or must be moving because it could be in some theoretical or imaginary framework, and then to call it science, is not only a circular fallacy but is, well.... quite silly!"  
2: The whole concept of larger objects going around smaller objects begs the question without knowledge of what and where the center of mass for all the objects in question ( the universe ) is in the first place. You must start with what you have not with what you imagine. To start with a model with no motion of the Earth is not a proof  for or against Earth motion nor does it assume anything. It is the only logical position from which to begin the experimental and theoretical process necessary to ascertain any proof for or against.  The model itself is not proof, it is only a premise or foundation for the discovery process. As stated many times one must logically begin with what you have not with what you do not have, and since proof for motion is the question, any model that assumes motion or interprets the data in terms of motion that is used to support or build upon a case for motion is a circular fallacy. Whereas taking observations and conducting experiments with no assumptions of motion is simply beginning with what you have. What you have does not include any argument or justification for incorporating that idea into ones interpretations of observations. To look out and see other objects in the heavens move does not tell you what is absolute motion, or what or whether or not you would and could feel/detect those motions if you were there ... and since you are not there ... think about that for a while.        
3a: We woke up in a world where things appear to move around us. We had and have no sensation of movement itself. That is where this whole question of the Earth's movement must and did begin ... "everything moving around me." From that point a process of observation and experiment then proceeds to ascertain what is and what is not moving. Well, those experiments which were conducted to make that distinction did show that the Earth is indeed NOT moving. The observations of mass centered on the Earth also promote the Earth's centrality of that position as well. You cannot interpret those observations and experiments in light of a heliocentric framework because that is what those experiments and observations are all about. This is your circular fallacy... those who developed and conducted those experiments and observations were not assuming an Earth-centered universe ... ( they were invoking a circular fallacy when they developed and performed them ). An Earth not in motion is exactly what those experiments showed, and the only thing that those observations demonstrate, without invoking circular fallacies about the Earth's movement first. It amazes me that you cannot see just how ridiculous your argument is and the fact that the only way to even begin to interpret data as consistent with the heliocentric theory is to assume that heliocentricity is preferred. There has been no experiment conducted on Earth with regard to gravity or any other theory that demonstrates anything other than what the initial observations and experiments show. They do not show things moving around you without invoking the heliocentric circular fallacy first.
3b: Heliocentricity is not logically plausible based on what is available without assuming that what you do not have is real. Your position makes no sense without assuming that heliocentricity is preferred first ... which is what everything that led up to and including today's model of heliocentricity was developed to prove in the first place. The problem is that nothing ever did prove heliocentricity without assuming that heliocentricity was the preferred conclusion to begin with, which is what it is trying to prove! Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp your arguments utter ridiculousness? Until you have observations and experience for Earth's movement your position is as plausible as aliens and abductions... thus we should build our lives around the "fact" that they are the most reasonable and plausible explanation for all unknown phenomena!? Your arguments and examples are in fact examples, not of heliocentricity's plausibility, but rather foolishness of the highest order. Demonstrate or concede but don't use Geocentrism's evidence for heliocentricity by begging the question that heliocentricity is preferred ... because until you have that evidence for heliocentricity all the evidence supports Geocentrism without assuming anything. Starting with the very first observation ever made namely the sky is moving around you but you have no sensation of movement. All subsequent observations and experiments have been consistent with no movement of the Earth and not one has shown itself to be for heliocentricity without assuming heliocentricity is preferred first, which is the question you beg and the circular fallacy you without fail, must invoke!
4a: If you are going to appeal to observation and experiment as the solid foundation of "reasoning the issue out" then you can't appeal to theory when observation and experiment do not support that position. Theories about the aether are irrelevant. What is observed and experimentally verified, as so far as it has been conducted in every case attempted, is that relative motion can be easily distinguished from absolute motion via the effects that motion has on light in every case ever observed or performed. There is no other logical conclusion based on observation and experiment that can be logically concluded without imagining and/or assuming some other construct first, without having observational or experimental support for such a thing. You keep invoking circular fallacies and attempting to justify them via your theories and "it could" but when someone points out that it could just as well mean something else you appeal to "observations". Which is it? If you bother to think about it for any length of time you will see that in either case, theory or observation, Geocentrism is the only position that has all the possible and logically sound arguments based on what is available/observed in the past and present. Whereas heliocentricity is built on what is not observed or experienced. As for illusions, that position only makes any sense whatsoever if you have a justification for "it's an illusion" otherwise this conversation itself could just be an illusion! To say that, "it could", therefore that is the most reasonable explanation is ridiculous as well as circular. The universe does not behave disorderly unless you assume that first - that is a fundamental difference between heliocentricity and Geocentrism. When we look out we can see some smaller objects orbiting larger objects but we do not see all smaller objects orbiting some larger objects. All assertions to that fact do assume that to be the case. But the sun circles me, I do not see me circling the sun without assuming that is what is really going on first. As for experiments and observations here on Earth we can distinguish between motion and non-motion regardless of how many "frames" we attempt to create via optical gyroscopes. There is no experiment that demonstrates that there is such a thing as a local reference frame that can be isolated from any other reference frame. So what experiments you are attempting to put forward and what laws of gravity and motion you keep trying to appeal to, do not exist to prove your conclusion without assuming your conclusion is true first. The whole heliocentric position is built on a house of cards and what's worse - none of them rate any higher than a Joker.
4b: The disagreements that do exist between the various Geocentric scientists have absolutely no bearing on the fact that the only experience available to man -observational or experimental - are only consistent with Geocentrism and are not consistent with heliocentricity without assuming ( begging the question ) that the universe is heliocentric first ... that the universe is something other than what can be demonstrated from observation and experiment, if that's the case then they should have no problem with us Jesus folks, otherwise there is no observation or experiment demonstrating heliocentricity without assuming it is true first ( begging the question ). The heliocentrists position is not only logically untenable but has, by its own refusal to accept observation and experiment when it conflicts with its predetermined conclusion about the Earth's motion, has in effect created a "science" that can never prove anything - "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" of anything. If imagination is the justification for heliocentricity then it is not "science". If observation and experiment are to be the benchmarks then there is no room for the heliocentric theory except in one's imagination!
5: I have and am pointing out that GC/GS ( Geocentric/Geostationary )
is the only logically deduced conclusion that one can make that can be demonstrated, because you cannot reach any other conclusion without imagining what cannot or has not been observed or experienced.
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 whereas 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 or could be a plane ) your first impulse is not, "Hey I am moving", without observation and experiment ( 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? Yes it could be. But you cannot show a logically deductive path for such a conclusion even if it were true. Therefore you cannot claim that the theory that you are moving is the most plausible explanation for what you observe any more so than with a bird or a plane.
What you seem to miss is that a theory and a logical deduction do not follow each other automatically. Feel free to theorize whatever you like but true 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 plausible; there is no logic in that reason nor can you even show it any more plausible without begging the questions, or else you can suppose there are aliens that live in my attic as the theory and reason for all my troubles...      Allen Daves

[K-Sensor]

It's possible the Earth isn't moving and the rest of the universe is,that's if we are the centre point of infinity.  Next where in the Bible does it say that the Sun is moving around the Earth?

Next don't proclaim science is a fraternity for atheists, science is everybody's.  You are using the same tactic as that deceiver and liar Dawkins,l even if you are merely repeating other's debate.  Place a disclaimer to this point.

Evolution is a religion.  Example macro evolution is a fantasy stated as fact. There is zero evidence for evolution but people believe in it becuase they're told it's truth and they understand that belief may further their career in a corrupt system.

Now on the religion side of science, there are states of light and darkness.  Kabbalism is clearly in the dark state as it's a detrimental practice.  The point, the Kabbalah has nothing to do with Christianity.  That's liken to saying Gnostics are valid Christians, a group that has been attacking the word since time begot.

[AntiPharisee]

K-Sensor,

The Kabbala has nothing to do with Christianiaty???

Wow. That's amazing.

That is precisely what I'm saying.

Water cools your skin down. Fire heats up your skin.
Now you say Fire is not the same as Water.
Brilliant.
That is what I am saying too.

AntiPharisee