Prev: superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether
From: Jacko on 14 Jun 2010 22:41
If you take the simple factors that the piriah groups Ly and J4 do not
have in common with the monster, then take the common 37 out, then Tc
the element has the J4 remainder atomic number, and the Ly remainder
of 67 minus the difference between the J4 43 and the common 37 has the
atomic number of 61, and guess what promethium has in common with
technitium???
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 14 Jun 2010 23:19
On Jun 14, 10:41 pm, Jacko <jackokr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
-----------------------------------------------
On Jun 14, 10:47 pm, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
>
> First, this in no way endangers any paradigm.
... ... ... ... ...
> Thus, even if the observations are re-interpreted to give
> different values, this in no way questions any assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------

So, according to you, if the concepts of dark matter and dark energy
are in possible jeopardy, there is "no problemo" for the LCDM model,
or the generic standard paradigm? No reason to question fundamental
assumptions? Not if 99% of what was supposed to be the mass/energy of
the cosmos vanishes like the Cheshire Cat?

Like I said: 'Bring on the fudge!'

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 16 Jun 2010 01:13
On Jun 15, 4:52 pm, hel...(a)astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:

> What would
> challenge the paradigm would be an observation which could not be
> explained by any combination of the usual parameters. (And, no, one
> cannot "fit anything"---especially not thousands of data points---with
> just a few parameters.)
-------------------------------------------------------

To the contrary, the model-building of the last several decades
clearly shows that theoreticians can mold their multiple-free-
parameter creations [QCD might be the poster-child for this new type
of "science"] to fit whatever has been found.

Examples:
(1) Lots of dark matter
(2) Considerably less dark matter
(3) No dark energy (not even dreamed up yet)
(4) Lots of dark energy
(5) Omega = 1
(6) Omega = 0.03
(7) Omega[adjusted] = 1
(8) Tons of "dark matter subhaloes"
(9) An order of magnitude too few "subhaloes"
(10) One little universe
(11) 10^500 multiverses

And the list goes on and on if you want to consider "smaller" ad hoc
"adjustments".

Peebles has ridiculed to situation periodically.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

From: eric gisse on 16 Jun 2010 03:45
Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

[...]

Robert, I have to wonder if you could even work your way through a
moderately complicated E&M/classical mechanics problem.
From: Robert L. Oldershaw on 16 Jun 2010 13:14
On Jun 16, 3:45 am, eric grosse narr <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Robert, I have to wonder if you could even work your way through a
> moderately complicated E&M/classical mechanics problem.
-------------------------------------

And I have to wonder if you can come up with a coherent scientific
comment, instead of all this ad hominem bluster.

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: superdeterminism rather than Darwin evolution for science theory discoveries Chapt 2 #160; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Time shares the geometry of space's aether