It doesn't make sense at any time that just because you are interested in your life that I or anyone else would be. If you really think so and felt you needed to 'yank my chain' for saying, "Trust me, I'm not interested in what you and your wife do, how much you enjoy it, where you went to dinner or when you'll reply", I find it curious that your definition of cantankerous seems to be quite the opposite of your definition of graphic.
"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..."
Wow, I don't think I will try to imagine the group that's interested in 'what you and your wife do and how much you enjoy it'. I certainly appreciate you not putting me in that group and no, I don't want to know who is in it.
" 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."
Now I guess we get to find out what your definition of 'take issue with' is. But it's pretty simple really. When I said I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic', I meant I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic'.
That wasn't an invitation for you to point me toward what you consider graphic in hopes that I will go running off to see it. And certainly not for you to suggest that I should have taken such advice when I specifically said that wasn't what I wanted to see. Make sense to you yet?
"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."
You might want to consider re-reading those quotes. The Ellis quote says,
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
He was talking about "a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center" that cannot be disproved based on observations. That is geocentrism. His point is that your choice of models is philosophically-driven and he is correct. You are thinking along the same lines as another poster who thinks the sun must be dragged around the earth and that simply shows a lack of understanding of the model.
"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.)"
I stopped looking after I found references to the first couple that you said weren't there. If you read a little about geocentrism, you will find that the fixed stars replicate the effect of Thirring's thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun. You would also find that centrifugal and coriolis forces arise naturally in geocentric models but are known as fictitious forces in geokinetic models.
"Cheers!"
Cheers!
Not to you, apparently. But I have found from experience that most FReepers will open up a little, or engage in banter, even in heated threads. I didn't know *you* would be the exception.
Wow, I don't think I will try to imagine the group that's interested in 'what you and your wife do and how much you enjoy it'. I certainly appreciate you not putting me in that group and no, I don't want to know who is in it.
Your sarcasm detector is due for an overhaul.
Now I guess we get to find out what your definition of 'take issue with' is. But it's pretty simple really. When I said I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic', I meant I'd 'hate to see what you consider graphic'.
It was not a posting of "what I consider graphic", still less did I post it in the hopes that you would go running off to see it.
Your remarks "hate to see what you consider graphic" were an overreaction, so I wanted to give you the opportunity to compare and contrast, to see just how far away from the label "graphic" my posting really was.
And certainly not for you to suggest that I should have taken such advice when I specifically said that wasn't what I wanted to see. Make sense to you yet?
It made sense all along, I just disagreed with your major premise.
I stopped looking after I found references to the first couple that you said weren't there. If you read a little about geocentrism, you will find that the fixed stars replicate the effect of Thirring's thick-walled sphere enclosing the Earth and Sun. You would also find that centrifugal and coriolis forces arise naturally in geocentric models but are known as fictitious forces in geokinetic models.
What I said, was that I was unable to find certain of your quotes from specific sources, not that "they weren't there".
In the meantime, I specifically asked *for* references, explaining (with specific sites) that I had so far been unable to verify your quotes. You declined to give them. So it is misleading of you to deny my request and cover your rudeness by making a false accusation against me to cover your tracks.
A little more intellectual honesty from you would be in order, even if you are too impatient even to re-check your words before posting.
You are thinking along the same lines as another poster who thinks the sun must be dragged around the earth and that simply shows a lack of understanding of the model.
No, I was concerned because the discussion of the Ellis quote which I was able to find, placed Ellis' quote in the context of "why are all the stars apparently receding from *the Earth*' more or less equally -- which is obviously a different question than a challenge to Ptolemaic models of the solar system.
So rather than making disparaging remarks about you, I pointed out the discrepancy, and asked if you had any links to the full Ellis article, or the Thirring article.
And I haven't *yet* been able to read about geocentrism, because I haven't been able *yet* to find full-text reproductions of the sources for your quotes. So the question about the effects of the thick-walled sphere remained a valid one, since I was not asserting "it won't work" -- rather, I was asking -- "how carefully had it been checked?"
This is in fact the *opposite* of your accusation that "You are thinking along the same lines as another poster who thinks the sun must be dragged around the earth and that simply shows a lack of understanding of the model."
Cheers, you lovable rapscallion, you!