[geocentrism] Re: Reality-check on science
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 10:20:33 +1100
Quoting Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: art@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:24:38 +1100
>
>
> > You skillfully gloss over all my comments. Anyway...
>
> Your comments were statements, not questions. "You should know that," "You
> should also know that," "You should also know," these were all statements. My
> choosing to not dispute them does not necessarily mean that I have glossed
> over them. I could, for example, be in complete agreement with you that I
> should know this, that or the other. You should (and probably do) regard it
> as highly likely that I do know what you were referring to. However, the
> issue at hand has nothing to do with diffraction theory, nor with adaptive
> optics, either NGS, nor LGS.
>
You brought it up. You made some very misleading comments, and I explained why
they were misleading.
> > ... If, on the other hand, we find that one of the founding assumptions of
> > the theory, does not hold, then we will have to discard the theory all
> > together, pending confirmation by other groups. And then it is back to the
> > drawing board to try to come up with a theory that encompasses both the old
> > and the new observations. That is science. ...
> >
> > > This will apply to just about the entire field of astronomy if we can
> > > demonstrate that one of the founding assumptions of heliocentrism is
wrong.
> > > Would you agree?Neville.
> >
> > That's what I wrote.
> > But it also goes for your theory of a geocentric Universe.
> > I would like your confirmation of that.
>
> No problem. I hereby confirm that a demonstrable flaw in the founding
> assumptions of a geocentric universe would render the model built upon those
> assumptions untenable.Neville.
>
Good.
Regner Trampedach
Other related posts:
