[geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:02:58 +1100
Well, for us poor misguided scientists, those big instruments are just means
to look at yet other parts of a truly fantastic and awe inspiring Universe.
We don't have wet dreams about our telescopes - I find it mildly weird to
state that a telescope is boring - who cares? We are interested in how we can
use our ingenuity and technical know-how to learn more about the Universe we
live in.
When you see a black speck high up in a blue summer sky, doesn't it enrich
your experience of that little speck, when you then aim your binoculars at
it and discover it's an eagle soaring high above you?
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> philip madsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Not to forget the vast field of Radio
> astronomy... much more exciting in some ways even if there are no
> hubble like pictures..
> Phil
>
> No, no, no, no!!! Use your eyes! All these big stupid machines of
> men overlook the beauty of the creation!!! Radio telescopes are
> exceptionally boring.
>
>
>
> Steven.
>
>
>
> -----
> Original Message -----
> From:
> Paul Deema
> To:
> geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent:
> Monday, November 12, 2007 9:59 AM
> Subject:
> [geocentrism] Re: Two spin axes of Earth?
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
> Paul,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Neville
>
>
> www.GeocentricUniverse.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -----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?
>
> Jack
>
> ----- 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.
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.29/1124 - Release Date:
> 11/11/2007 10:12 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
