Jack Lewis, That was the short answer and trust me there is a long answer too, but the physical restriction of time does not allow to, and your topic is not the topic of this thread. I'll address one issue at a time. Stating that science is pure fantasy, is insulting me personally whether you intend to do that or not. That statement also shows a well-developed ignorance for the real world. I would much prefer if the discussions here could remain at a more sober level. But then, it is not my discussion board. Regner Trampedach - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Dear Regner, > No! is not much of an answer, however I expected you to say that. Some > examples of true, solid empirical science would have useful, but I would > much sooner wait for your response to the latest drawings by James (ja). > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 10:36 PM > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing > > > > Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > >> Dear Paul, > >> Just about everything to do with astronomy are assumptions and cannot be > >> verified. > >> > > No! > > > >> Black holes, stellar distances, dark matter, parallel universes, > >> Doppler effect, even what the sun is made of are all assumptions piled > >> upon > >> assumptions. > >> > > No! > > > > Regner > > > > > >> Jack > >> > >> > > > > > >