[geocentrism] Re: Challenge/
- From: "Knarr" <knarrrj@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:04:14 -0500
reply in red below to Alan Griffin.
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Griffin
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 4:00 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Challenge/
On 28 Jul, Knarr <knarrrj@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> A first requirement, it seems to me, would be to explain the moon's
> shadow during an eclipse. If this cannot be done by the heliocentrists
> then to debate the causes of more distant objects is just a futile
> exercise. (I think it would be futile in any case, but to each his
> own.)
By R.K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It CAN be done by the heliocentrists! Do it. I have done it! Please
show me. Try drawing
a scale diagram. I'm afraid that Neville's argument is flawed, and he has
made a mistake. This is a claim. Show him where. Reply to Neville. You
refute his thesis.
And what a ridiculous argument, postulating that red shifts change
regularly because the speed of light changes regularly. I never said or
suggested that the speed of light changed regularly. I merely suggested, I did
not postulate as to the red shifts. If this is your depth of reasoning please
do not respond. To suggest that red shifts can occur regularly is no more
unreasonable than to suggest that the light output towards the earth from the
moon, can change regularly. It's just that you have a better understanding of
the one than the other. You have
absolutely no proof. Why say this. None was claimed. You have no proof as to
the cause of the red shifts, but you claim to know why. Who is being
unreasonable? IIt's an "Alice through the looking glass" conjecture. Yours or
mine.?
Ronald Knarr
Alan Griffin
Other related posts:
