Dear Karl Herenicus,
I read your paper, "Theories Upon the Stars", and while I appreciate your attempt to present an alternative view on the subject, I must say I found your theories to be unconvincing and lacking in scientific rigor.
As a fellow astronomer, I believe it is important to base one's theories and conclusions on empirical evidence and sound reasoning. I would not be averse to an in-person meeting where perhaps you could explain your claims more thoroughly.
Regardless, I urge you to reconsider your approach and focus on more substantiated and evidence-based research in the future. As it stands currently, your work comes off as the sort of crackpot theories one would be peddled by a charlatan in a crowded marketplace.
Regards,
Estellise Azimi
Azimi,
You shall find that, were you to read my submitted paper, it is intended to simulate the mind and offer an alternative theory to how things are believed. Make one consider this as possible, and then consider what such a possibility would mean.
My own observations suggest that it is the correct one. However, without the suitable equipment, providing any kind of evidence shall prove impossible.
Without such papers to suggest potential changes in how things are believed, imbeciles will never step outside of what is known to seek more possibilities.
Herenicus