[geocentrism] Re: Angular momentum
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:28:20 +0100 (BST)
Dear Mike,
Having cited me a passage that you placed on BA, namely,
"> 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)."
which I was humbled by, you then proceed to call me a liar, thus:
"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."
I find this indian-giver attitude rather amusing.
Anyway, in case I get branded a hypocrite next, I must tell you all that I am
not a regular visitor to BadAstronomy. There are some on that forum whose
opinions I would listen to (yourself and Rob Glover are two), and try to debate
with, but my view of the majority is well known (including the founder, who
bans geocentrists not because they are rude, or offensive, but because they
have respectable lines of argument).
No, people sometimes send me postings from there that they think I may be
interested in. This is how I received the following:
"Worzel posted:
Don't know if anyone is still interested in this (or ever was) but I've just
posted this rebutttal on his forum becuase he now believes his case is
scientifically irrefutable due to the lack of rebuttals. Any comments welcome
(I'm sure some of you guys could have said the same thing in a tenth of the
words)."
Mike, you will no doubt remember that posting. It's the one where you discuss
the experiments in a tilted field. If you check the dates of this BA posting
with your contributions to the geocentrism forum, you will hopefully see that I
am not a liar.
Anyway, since the comments you quoted me (and which I did not get sent, by the
way) are very gentlemanly and honest, I will debate your ideas regarding the
celestial pole argument. Give me a day or two, though, and please be aware that
it won't be the inclined field tack - that was way above my head (I gave up
reading it about one third the way through and I don't intend to try again!).
No, I will investigate your movement along the axis idea, which I found quite
interesting when I briefly considered it a while back.
I hope you find this satisfactory.
Best wishes,
Neville.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
