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!
No, to claim that because something is important to you that it will be important to some else does not make sense at any time. That's incredibly egocentric, nothing more. And this is already nothing more than banter. There's no substance to this point, what else are we doing?
"Your sarcasm detector is due for an overhaul."
As is yours.
"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."
Well obviously it wasn't what you consider 'graphic'. I thought that was clear when I said it. And if you didn't want me to go look, why did you say, "If you had done as I suggested, and searched some of his posts, you'd have seen what I meant." Now you either wanted me to go look or you didn't. You have now claimed both sides of that argument.
"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."
No, it was your interpretation of my remarks that you define as an 'overreaction', just as you have defined me as being 'cantankerous', 'irascible', 'taking issue', etc. When do you realize that you are projecting emotions onto other people that simply aren't there? Ever?
"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."
No, I said I found them on google books on the exact pages referenced by the posted quotes but that the pages were restricted. That's a huge difference from 'declining to give them'. I gave you references, you just want me to find *online* references for you. That's a totally different thing. Now you project your emotions again and accuse me of 'rudeness'. Do you ever stop projecting?
"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."
How about a little more intellectual honesty from you? Projecting yet again, are you?
"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."
Well maybe you should look at the quote itself and see what it says, rather than looking at a discussion of the quote by people who already believe in geokineticism and who are looking at it from the geokinetic perspective. They obviously aren't going to consider the geocentric angle because of their 'a priori' beliefs and the fact that they didn't is totally irrelevant.
Look, he said that he could construct a model of the universe with the earth at it's center and you could not disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it based on philosophy. That is completely consistent with the other quotes by Einstein, Hoyle and Born. Is that not clear enough?
"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
Now, if you can't disprove a geocentric universe from observation, then you can't disprove a geocentric universe from observation. No matter that you don't believe it and are looking at it from the perspective of assumed motion. That's not relevant.
"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?""
My goodness. Is typing 'geocentrism' and 'thirring' into Google really that much of a stretch. Wow.
"Cheers, you lovable rapscallion, you!"
Cheers, you lovable rapscallion, you!