From: PointedEars@web.de   
      
   Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > Of course, you will agree that 1) the solar system is in a geodesy   
   > that's always instantaneously evaluated everywhere its orbifold,   
   > and the apparent force vectors of gravity are by the bodies in   
   > their orbifold as modeled by the geodesy not their image's locations,   
   > and 2) dark-matter/dark-energy or rather the observations that imply   
   > their existence have long ago falsified standard cosmology   
   > (Einsteinian/Newtonian/Galilean), then also there's that 3) readily   
   > apparent gyroscopic effects are not explained by Magnus effect and   
   > have falsified Galilean theories of trajectory.   
      
   How can I possible agree to this?  It is pseudo-scientific word salad,   
   bereft of meaning.   
      
   An orbifold does not have to do with astronomical orbits.  You keep using   
   words because they sound scientific, not because you know their meaning.   
   The result is utter nonsense, not even wrong.   
      
   --   
   PointedEars   
      
   Twitter: @PointedEars2   
   Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)