Well just because *you* are doesn't mean that *I* would be. Does that make sense to you?
"It's common courtesy when delaying a reply to mention why; and most people can relate to talk birthday dinners with a spouse."
Again, this all hinges on the definition of 'delay'. If you think I am expecting an immediate reply, you would be wrong. So if you believe that you must absolutely let me know, a simple, "I will get back to you in 2 days" is more than sufficient.
I don't need to know where you and your wife go to dinner, what you and your wife do or how much you enjoy it. Maybe you should consider that some people consider it (1) irrelevant and (2) gross to share such information.
"Maybe you should read some of Laz's posts... Cheers! (Laz, sorry to drag you into this, just a courtesy ping since your name was mentioned.)"
Now you are dragging some guy named 'Laz' into this? Dude, what does it take for you to catch on?
It made sense even at the time, but you were being so cantankerous that I thought I might as well yank your chain for it.
I don't need to know where you and your wife go to dinner, what you and your wife do or how much you enjoy it. Maybe you should consider that some people consider it (1) irrelevant and (2) gross to share such information.
And many others don't. But now that I know what group to put you in, I won't ping you to any of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit threads...
Now you are dragging some guy named 'Laz' into this? Dude, what does it take for you to catch on?
You had taken issue with one of my earlier comments, remarking that you'd hate to see what I considered graphic.
If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant.
In the meantime, you might want to consider re-checking some of your earlier quotes...the quote from Ellis: he doesn't seem to be making reference to whether the Sun revolves around the earth, but to the apparent position of the Earth at the center of expansion of the known universe.
And that quote "One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Do you have a link to the article by Thirring, or only a reference to its existence? (What evidence is there of a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun, or the known universe, or whatever? In the absence of the actual presence of such a sphere, the equivalence of Ptolemy and Copernicus appears to break down.)
Cheers!