Re: Strange relativistic silence

On 09/07/2024 12:36 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/07/2024 12:23 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@wanadou.fr> wrote:
>

When I explained that the theory of relativity was very poorly
understood,
and therefore very poorly explained, I always encountered an
extraordinary
silence from my correspondents.
It is the same silence that still persists today, mockery and insults
not
being answers in the scientific sense of things.

>
Have you noticed the strange absence of geographers and astronomers
at flat-earther's conferences?
>
Jan
>

>
Did you know that the Babylonians divided the firmament into
three celestial ways?
>
>

It's kind of like, if the Qumranites are really to be given
see Pharisee-aical explanation, when otherwise the Essenes
are rather of the Sadducees extreme, as with regards to Judas the
Galilean (circa 70 AD) then that otherwise the Qumranites were both
Hebraic and Roman, and also reflected as of a center of translation of
more ancient works of the Orient, and Mesopotamia, that the Essenes were
a particularly dedicated sect, does anybody really care what you say?
Is there really a difference?
It's like, if pre-Roman John as with regards to Pellinore,
was a Pict, and not a Roman, in as to whether Uther and/or
Arthur were Romans, then mightn't one aver that not all
roads lead to Rome? In the, "mists of time"?
Weren't the Romans just initially savages?
If Perseus, Bellerophon, and his winged horse killed the Chimera,
and George a dragon, do we really have ten fingers and toes?
So, is it so unlikely that Jericho is a cultural cross-roads?