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!
You're conflating "will [necessarily] be important" with "will [is likely to be, based on past experience] be important." You have in effect accused me of the first, when I was doing the second.
As is yours. [sarcasm detector]
Now you either wanted me to go look or you didn't. You have now claimed both sides of that argument.
I wanted you to look, but NOT for the reasons you attributed to me.
When do you realize that you are projecting emotions onto other people that simply aren't there? Ever?
In order for projection to occur, two conditions must apply. First, the accuser must harbor the emotions; second, (probably) the accused must be free from the emotions.
I am not cantankerous, irascible, taking issue, etc.
If I were, I would not have been asking you for more details about your quotes, I would have dismissed the quotes out of hand.
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.
Well, yes, I had asked for that. Such a request is not inherently unreasonable. But, since you did bring it up, what do you mean "found them on google books" and then a sentence or two later say "you just want me to find *online* references for you"?? I thought google was online; could you explain a bit more clearly -- that way I'd be able to find the quotes in context, which remains my intent.
How about a little more intellectual honesty from you? Projecting yet again, are you?
No, no projection, nor yet dishonesty.
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.
Thats just my point, Dan. I'd love to see the original quote, and with it the original article in context. Because when I first tried to find the quote and article, all I found were duplications of the same few sentences you posted; but the discussion around those sentences made it sound like that Ellis was talking about Earth as the center of an expanding Universe, and not just the center of a solar system. Since those two topics ARE very different, I wanted to see the original article to see if the other people were taking his remarks out of context or not.
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?
Difficulty over words here -- yes it is clear in the sense that I can form the mental construct alleged in your last paragraph. Unclear, because of my prior paragraph, I wanted to make sure the the quotes you gave really were in context and not "cherry picked" or misunderstood: not necessarily by you, or out of bad faith. See your quote of Ellis below:
"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.”
Emphasis mine.
You then went on :
"No matter that you don't believe it and are looking at it from the perspective of assumed motion. That's not relevant. "
The Ellis quote above, out of its context, does not tell me *which* observations he is talking about.
And the websites I found which *did* have this quote were not talking exclusively about the Solar System, which is how this back-and-forth between us got started.
So it is not in fact a matter of my beliefs either way -- it is a matter that the quote from Ellis looked a bit off-topic.
My goodness. Is typing 'geocentrism' and 'thirring' into Google really that much of a stretch. Wow.
I did and was not able to find his original article. I did find a few flamewars reminiscent of this thread, however :-)
Cheers!