[geocentrism] Re: The resolution of Mars

  Dear Philip,
  Photons - shmotons - whatever it is there must be a limit to what the eye can 

  Jack  yes, without help.. Thats why we have amplifiers.. But without 
frequency waves, photons must separate, and amplifiers will or could occupy a 
space where no packets of energy, as photons (bullets), exist..  Light is a 
coherent wave, not a particle. If it has impact this is due to aether effect, 
which as has been said elsewhere, is responsible for matter mass and inertia. 
My text book does not deny there is a problem with the corpuscle theory of EMR 
but accepts it in conjunction with wave theory. Why? heaven forbid, an aether?

  Back to Mars: 
  Put it this way..  The math cannot be wrong, the distance and the size of 
Mars cannot be in error, and we can see it..  Conclusion, the eye can see it.. 
therefore the argument why an eye should not see it is in error. Rowbotham is 
wrong for the same reason re his flat earth. 

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: philip madsen 
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 10:21 PM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The resolution of Mars

      Dear Regner,
      As I understood Neville's paper, I thought that he was saying that the 
      from Mars would be to dim to be seen. Was he not saying simply that the 
      photo receptors of the eye would not register the photons? I may have 
      the word 'resolution' incorrectly.  That is the major weaknes in the 
corpuscular or photon theory of EMR Jack..  Wave motion on the other hand 
opposes the restrictions you apply. The eyes receptors are sensitive to 
frequency not photons. Science cannot and has not resolved the issue of the 
photon corpuscular theory needing to include wave mechanics..  and hence the 
necessity of my friend the aether. . 



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.8/1154 - Release Date: 27/11/2007 
11:40 AM

Other related posts: