[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?

  • From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:59:51 +1100 (EST)

Neville J
  I didn't mention telescopes but I get your point. I also understand that 
astronomers today do not sit in freezing conditions, watering eyes straining at 
eyepieces and sketching intermittently on a pad with a pencil held in one of 
those fingerless glove things.
  Paul D

Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The diffraction limit of "big expensive" telescopes is not achieved in the real 
world. Also, no astronomer is "directly examin[ing] the universe," but rather 
making observations in a terrestrial laboratory and seeking to promote and 
understand those observations within the currently accepted model.



    -----Original Message-----
From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:17:37 +0000 (GMT)

  Jack L
I doubt one person in a hundred would regard this statement as patronising. 
There was an attempt at humour in there -- perhaps that is what has sparked 
your ire?
  What Regner is doing that only a very small percentage of the overall 
population is doing -- is being a professional astronomer. He gets to use lots 
of big expensive exciting equipment to directly examine the universe. I don't 
know about you but I'm envious.
  Paul D

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Dear Paul,
  Why did you find it necessary to patronise Regner in that way? Regarding the 
'real thing' what in heavens name is Regner doing that no-one else is?
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Deema 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

  Allen D
I'd be careful about advising Regner to refer to a model. He doesn't need one. 
He plays with the real thing!
  Paul D

Paul D

National Bingo Night. Play along for the chance to win $10,000 every week. 
Download your gamecard now at Yahoo!7 TV.

Other related posts: