Well, why not?
twitch: sorry, it carries my name adress and full credits, as do the follow-up write-ups in other publications. . but
all you doubters: rest assured that, even if terms are sometimes cryptic, as they have to be given this format, no lie can be construed from them.
How could a lie be construed? You've nothing of any substance, and to tell a lie, one must first know the truth.
Not surprising that you refuse to provide proof of your claims once again. It stands to reason that if one claims to have published works, one would provide references. There are a number of authors here who have no issue providing reference to their published work here. What's your excuse? Can you provide any evidence of your supposed credentials?
There is nothing wrong with this format. Plenty of things have been written that represent actual facts. Sorry to hear you are having troubles writing your ideas down.
Clearly you wish to remain anonymous yet claim authority on a subject, obliging the reader to accept "I have credentials but can't tell you these so you'll just have to trust me on it". Seriously?
Also, why the need for anonymity anyways? Apparently you are wealthy and your supposed offspring will be well taken care of. You have a beautiful wife, obviously half your age. No concerns or ties to the jw world that seems apparent from your post history. What are you afraid of really?
There are all kinds of personal stories written about here, and I feel no shame if it somehow gets across what my limitations are.
Apparently not, since it seems to be a reoccuring crutch and a thinly disguised ploy for sympathy when pleading a case against reason and evidence. These limitations have no relevance to whether your ideas and arguments have any validity.
re: the star trails. I am not the lens-grinding, mirror-polishing astronomy type, not taking pictures. It took me a while to understand by referring to the location HOW such a picture of PARTIAL circles around Polaris or the southern polar REGION can be made. I had to work this through, and realized that even our vacation home is in the northern Hemisphere, although polaris only a few degrees above the horizon, only a small circular star trail possible there, and pointing south, the southern trail would be only partial. I certainly understood the principals but it was good to learn that about PICTURES. south-america did not sound in the least NORTHERN to me.
As I said, it's rather surprising that this fundamental concept was unknown to you. I hesitate to ask if you know what ecliptic or sidereal means. I'm by no means an expert and don't polish any mirrors; in fact, I've never owned a telescope but this isn't a prerequsite to understanding the basic concepts of astronomy, which you clearly don't.
What would the folks at the astronomical society think had these photos and this discussion happened at the supposed meeting? How much credence would your theoretical astrophysics have then?
of course some of the ideas I advanced on here are hypothetical, good! if it rings alarm bells.
Oh, it does, rest assured. But not the way you intend most likely.
other ways of looking at things I mentioned, like
The TIDES, GALAXY SPIRAL ARMS as standing waves, standing density waves, to prove it, I had my son back it up up with links, cut&paste somewhere. These are kernels of truth with delicious meat around them.
Puhleeze with the tides thing. As for the galactic density wave HYPOTHESIS, the article leaned towards NOT providing positive results in favour of. Clearly, you are mistaken would be a nice way of putting it.
And wtf about kernels, truth and meat? You're slipping into wizard mode again.
Any DIRECT comments on totally wrong ideas, or corrections will be welcome by ALL learners. even the geriatic ones.
Direct comments have been made and your own links do not support your ideas as more than inconclusive hypothesis. I trust something has been learned by someone, not neccessarily yourself. And you played the geriatric card btw, if you recall.
discovering Ball analogies all the time. like ROULETTE?
Whatever. Things that spin and a god that throws rigged dice tickles your fancy. Got it.
re: my communication skills: I am sorry, but I am stuck,
I am writing with an accent. and while I am at it, venting:
You can't type a name, an article, book or review? Playing the second language card is no excuse.
You like to be poetic and mix it with science. Music of the spheres, harmonious interactions, grand design, etc. Not science.
Vent away but you're deluded if you expect it to be taken as fact.
so to the authors of the "Liar", "Moron" type contributions, :
with age/proven survival skills, my great,- or smal family, my recognized work, these things do not faze me. I do not rely on such ones' approval to bolster my ego.
Age is irrelevant with respect to the topics.
Your family is irrelevant with respect to the topics
You have no recognized work.
And this ain't about approval or your ego; it's about facts as generally accepted by experts in the field, of which you are clearly not one.
In fact, I think you are completely full of shit.
