[geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum
- From: Mike <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 03:24:59 +0100
Dear Neville,
>> You STILL haven't responded to my last post regarding your "proof"
>> of the incorrectness of heliocentrism regarding the celestial
>> poles.
> note that this is because I have no intention of responding to
> someone who is simultaneously posting ridicule on BadAstronomy about
> this, or any related, subject.
Since I rejoined this forum and apologized for my rather harsh judgement
of you previously I have only posted, verbatim, an argument I posted on
this forum and this:
> He is quite polite and willing to discuss his ideas in sceintific
> terms with his critics, and he is capable of understanding them too
> which is a plus.
>
> What keeps drawing people's attention to him is that he keeps
> publishing "scientific proofs" that the heliocentric model is wrong
> and it can be quite good fun trying to find the misdirections.
>
> More importantly though, left unchallenged, other creationists cite
> him as part of the scientific evidence against heliocentrism. Trying
> to explain to them why his claims are not scientific is virtually
> impossible because they don't really understand the "proofs" in the
> first place.
>
> Look at the number of people still claiming that the heliocentric
> model does not agree with the observed solar eclipse (although it did
> reduce radically once Dr Jones retracted his paper).
I don't think these comments are any harsher than some of yours.
If something is mathematically flawed then opinion doesn't come in to
it. I believe I have demonstrated that your proof that the heliocentric
model is inconsistent is indead flawed. I find it rather too
coincidental to be credible that you have made this decision based on
what I have posted on BA at this point in the discussion. I simply do
not believe that if you could refute my last post on that topic that you
would hold back in doing so.
Sincerely,
Mike.
Other related posts:
