[geocentrism] chatter stevens
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:44:04 +1000
No, no, no, no!!! Use your eyes! All these big stupid machines of men overlook
the beauty of the creation!!! Radio telescopes are exceptionally boring.
Steven.
Thats your particular art Steven.. there is painting, and music, and there is
Radio.. You have never experienced the great thrill of building a radio
crystal set, and getting music out of the thin air without any batteries or
other form of power. And the whole career that follows on from that first
success. I do not doubt all these sciences are God given beauties of creation.
That some men miss that point is not His fault.
When I see the greenies interfering with a communities desire to build a large
dam for a water supply, I would cut off their water supply and power to their
house till they changed their mind. I would not let them dig a well till they
had an EPA investigation into such activities' effect on the environment..
Boring Steven?
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
philip madsen wrote:
Not to forget the vast field of Radio astronomy... much more exciting in
some ways even if there are no hubble like pictures..
Phil
No, no, no, no!!! Use your eyes! All these big stupid machines of men
overlook the beauty of the creation!!! Radio telescopes are exceptionally
boring.
Steven.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
Neville J
I didn't mention telescopes but I get your point. I also understand that
astronomers today do not sit in freezing conditions, watering eyes straining at
eyepieces and sketching intermittently on a pad with a pencil held in one of
those fingerless glove things.
Paul D
Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Paul,
The diffraction limit of "big expensive" telescopes is not achieved in
the real world. Also, no astronomer is "directly examin[ing] the universe," but
rather making observations in a terrestrial laboratory and seeking to promote
and understand those observations within the currently accepted model.
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:17:37 +0000 (GMT)
Jack L
I doubt one person in a hundred would regard this statement as
patronising. There was an attempt at humour in there -- perhaps that is what
has sparked your ire?
What Regner is doing that only a very small percentage of the overall
population is doing -- is being a professional astronomer. He gets to use lots
of big expensive exciting equipment to directly examine the universe. I don't
know about you but I'm envious.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dear Paul,
Why did you find it necessary to patronise Regner in that way?
Regarding the 'real thing' what in heavens name is Regner doing that no-one
else is?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Allen D
I'd be careful about advising Regner to refer to a model. He
doesn't need one. He plays with the real thing!
Paul D
Paul D
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every
week. Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date:
11/11/2007 10:12 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date: 11/11/2007
10:12 AM
Other related posts:
