[geocentrism] Re: 2 Axes of rotation - drawing
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:20:57 +1100
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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
