[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:19:33 +0100
Dear Alan,
.
Alan said:
> Dear Mr Jones,
>
> I object to your continual use of the word "alleged". My brother
> measures these radial velocities every night that is fine (157
> nights last year!) and I assure you that the change in radial
> velocities is FACT.
I don't doubt for one minute that your brother observes and measures
something. His interpretation of these observations are, if I am correct,
based on heliocentricity. His observations confirm heliocentric theory and
heliocentric theory confirms his observations - its circular reasoning.
Neville's paper demonstrates that observations do not confirm heliocentic
theory. If you want to convince me and others that Neville's paper is wrong
then you will have to take it apart line-by-line if necissary. Is not that
the way in which any proof or theory should be critiqued? And when that has
been done, to then offer an alternative e.g. your scale drawing perhaps?
Neville is making a very important statement and it is up to others to
demonstrate where HIS paper is wrong. Someone has already tried to do this
using a combinaton of Neville's figures coupled with their own and a
different approach; the result was confusion, a great deal of anger and
animosity. If he is wrong we need to be shown where his paper shows this to
be so. Therefore in the interests of good quality analytical criticism and
enlightenment for the rest of us, could you please deal with Neville's paper
in the way suggested
Sincerely yours
Jack Lewis
PS My other question still stands: How do you explain life from non life -
because without it there is no evolution.
Other related posts:
