[NOS2Go4Me]

ZTWsquared,Feb 15 2006, 12:17 PM Wrote:

Quote:Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.

That's right - you wouldn't want any "experts" weighing in on this.

So with this definition of "proof" - how they heck could you prove anything - including their own theory that the sun revolves around the earth? The answer is you can't.

What they're doing here is narrowing the definition of what constitutes proof to the point where no answer will be deemed acceptable ... and in doing that they can now claim that no one is able to offer "proof" that the earth revolves around the sun.

It's a classic positioning technique (spin) and an effective one ... I use it all the time.
[right][snapback]170636[/snapback][/right]

That's why I said use multiple observatories, over a period of 6 months or so. You can't deny mathematical data from multiple sources, over and over again.