Higgsy wrote:You miss the point entirely.
No, I just *disagree* with you entirely.
It's not that Copernicus was the first to put forward the idea (although he was the first to put forward a fully quantified idea of how it could all work), but that because the idea is so counter-intuitive and so against common sense, that it took millenia of astronomy, and observations which powerfully supported the idea for it become widely accepted.
The acceptance factor had, and still has nothing to do with "common sense", and everything to do with fear of change and ignorant bullying by the mainstream for not toeing the party line. People usually just believe whatever they are taught to believe and heretics are typically shunned and personally attacked, just as the mainstream is still doing to the EU/PC community today.
A helioscentric view of the solar system is every bit as "common sense' today as an Earth centric belief system seemed like "common sense" a thousand years ago. It wasn't as well "mathematically modeled" 1500 years ago perhaps, but that didn't mean that Aristarchus was wrong anymore than the math related to LCDM makes LCDM right today. Math alone doesn't tell the full story as this issue clearly demonstrates. Earth centric maths looked fine on paper, and they worked well enough to predict the movement of various planets and the position of the sun (maybe better than other options back then), but the whole Earth centric concept was physically FUBAR anyway, just like your dark magic universe is physically FUBAR today.
The rejection factor has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with protecting the delicate ego of the mainstream. That's as true today as it relates to EU/PC theory vs. LCDM as it was when Aristarchus was being ridiculed for proposing his "common sense" explanation for various celestial observations. It's not "common sense" to think that every star in the sky revolves around our planet! That's about as illogical as it gets when a simple planetary rotation would work better in the first place.
That is the point that I am making, and you will see if you read what I wrote above, that is the point I actually made. Which you would have realised if you hadn't such bad reading comprehension.
There you go again with your dishonest personal attacks. I'm sure Aristarchus would recognize that pathetic behavior for what it really is, just egotistical crap.
The point is that common sense did not lead to the right answer, because common sense holds that the Earth is static and the heavens revolve around it,
Who the hell, besides you, would agree to that claim today? That's not "common sense" today, and it never was any more "sensible' than heiiocentric beliefs even if Earth-centric beliefs were more "common" for a time.
and that's what the vast majority of people believed for millenia. Read the 1633 judgement and abjuration of Galileo where the heliocentric theory is called absurd and philosophically false for the beliegf held by 99.9% of people throughout history up to that point.
Yep, people believed what they were told, and they resisted change then, just like they believe the dogma they're told today about LCDM, and they resist change today. The heretics are always shunned, laughed at, ridiculed and abused today just like they've always been.
You're still missing the point.
No, I'm still *disagreeing* with your claim.
I am not saying that any theory in physics is based on common sense. On the contrary, I am saying that many well accepeted and evidenced theories run counter to common sense.
A heliocentric view of this solar system is not "counter to common sense" today, in fact it's considered "common sense" today and Earth centric views are considered to be irrational nonsense.
Because you're not doing the same thing.
Me personally? No. I'm fine with GR to describe gravity and I'm fine with the standard particle physics model, and I'm fine with circuit theory as it stands. If I have a preference for a theory of everything concept at the moment, it's probably the concept of Subquantum Kinetics, but even that seems "questionable' to me. I'm frankly not that interested in any particular theory of everything but others here are interested.
Nobody here is working on an alternative theory of gravity, because nobody here understands the extant theories. Nobody here is working on an alternative theory of anything. Nobody here knows how to work on a theory of anything. There are no theories being worked on by any of the regular EU proponents on this forum.
Do you really think that anyone here actually believes that you're a mind reader? Your personal attacks today are just as sleazy and irrational as those who hurled insults at Aristarchus. Nobody here believes your personal attack BS so just give it a rest already.
You know it's the latter?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850Yep. There are *at least* five major documented errors in those pathetic 2006 baryonic mass estimates of the bullet cluster galaxies, all of which show that your baryonic mass estimates were never close to accurate. There are also billions of dollars worth of failed dark matter tests to demonstrate the fact that your exotic matter claims fail every single lab test you've put them to over the last 10 years. What more evidence do I need to reject your claims about exotic matter?
So why don't you demonstrate quantitatively, using all the baryonic mass estimates plus any corrections that have been applied since 2005 that you can model a spiral galaxy with the observed rotation curves using GR and no exotic matter. Of course you won't do this, because you guys never, ever quantify anything. Ever.
First of all, that's just another bald faced lie since Peratt did that for you *years* ago, not that you ever bothered to read any of it. Secondly, there's simply no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist to start with, and there's no evidence that your industry has a clue how to estimate mass based on light. Lastly, you've already calculated how much matter you missed in your own dark matter halo models, so why would I reinvent the wheel for you?
I'm not doing your busy work just because you're too lazy to do it yourself or because you want me to jump through mathematical hoops for you personally. If you believe in exotic forms of matter, it's up to *you* to demonstrate it exists, it's not up to me to prove you wrong.
So quantify exactly how that halo surrounding the Milky way affects the rotation curves of the galaxy. You won't do it because you never ever quantify anything. And here's a hint - look up and try to understand the shell theorem.
Here's a hint. Take your own DM "halo" models and insert ordinary plasma and gas in those halo models and I promise you that the math works out perfectly, shell theorem and all. I'm not claiming that only exotic matter would work in those dark matter halo models you came up with, but apparently you seem to think so. Prove it, otherwise that work has already been done *by your industry* already and all that's necessary is to replace your exotic nonsense with known forms of matter. Period. No additional math is necessary or warranted to start with because it's already been done! I'm not your math mommy.
Do you ever read any papers, or are all your references to rubbishy newspaper articles? The Daily Mail - beneath contempt.
What's beneath contempt is the fact that you dodged your obvious jet heating problems by hurling insults at me. Do you really think that's going to make your major heating problem go away?
http://earthsky.org/space/the-extremely ... asar-3c273http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.38 ... hPage=trueIf you guys weren't so damn electrophobic you'd realize that electricity and electrical current also play a role in such features as Alfven explained *decades* ago, and as Peratt modeled with software *decades* ago. For crying out loud, do you try to blatantly dodge every problem in your theory by blaming the messenger or what?
They aren't irrelevant. Such BS from so called professionals shows just how ignorant your industry is, and/or how deceitful LCDM proponents are, and how dishonest these debates end up being as a result. No EU/PC solar model predicts "no neutrinos", but not a single mainstream astronomer pointed out that BS to lyin' Brian. You're all either clueless about our models, or you simply don't care to be honest about them, one or the other. Which is it in your case? Do you admit that Koberlein is full of crap with respect to EU/PC solar models predicting our sun to emit "no neutrinos"? Yes or no?
I still have no idea what you are bleating about.
Another blatant dodge:
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/02/25/t ... -universe/That's the crap I'm talking about. Go set him straight. He's been ignorantly lying about EU/PC solar theory for *years* now and not a single so called "professional" called him on his BS. You won't call him on his BS either because none of you have any integrity at all when it comes to science. I don't even like Juergen's anode solar model, I prefer Birkeland's cathode model, but it pisses me off no end that you folks simply lie your asses off about that model and everything related to EU/PC theory for that matter. Tom Bridgman's been lying about Birkeland's model for years too, and no "processional" has bothered to set him straight. You're all either professionally incompetent or unethical as hell. Which is it?
You don't have any mathematics to support your theories. Zero.
Repeating the same blatant lies just makes you look ignorant and dishonest. Suit yourself, but it's not my fault that you're too damn lazy to bother to read what's already been written. Your blatant lies won't make any of Peratt's or Alfven's published papers suddenly disappear. They won't make Lerners papers disappear, or Bruce's papers disappear, or that last solar flare paper I handed you disappear either.
Why don't you accept that your criticisms are utterly invalid and totally unfounded
Because they're not invalid or unfounded, they're correct and well founded in fact. Admittedly my criticisms do *not* apply to the one NS-NS merger scenario, or any multimessenger event in the future, but it applies to every BH-BH merger claim to date, including the most recent one. Even your sigma figures do not directly relate to "cause" and they're totally trumped up because all the normal environmental noise was *removed* from the sigma calculations.
and that no-one is ever going to take the slightest notice of them. No-one who matters cares what you think.
I never had any illusions about that to begin with. You folks ignored Alfven and Einstein's criticisms even after giving them Nobel Prizes, so I have no illusions about the fact that you're going to ignore my criticisms too.
THERE WAS NO VALID VETO AT THE TIME OF THE FIRST DETECTION.
Bullshit. That exact signal was vetoed within 18 seconds of it being uploaded to the gracedb database and nobody at LIGO has explained why it was vetoed, why it was vetoed with *high confidence*, or ever quantified the human override of that veto. In fact nobody mentioned it in the published paper, just some damn lie about there being no vetoes present within an hour of the event.
If you keep claiming that there was you just make yourself look like a clown.
I'd rather look like a clown than have flat out lied in a published paper by claiming that no vetoes took place within an hour of the event when in fact a veto took of that exact signal took place within 18 seconds.
Maybe, if I shout, I'll get through to the hard of understanding.
Nope. Only a full explanation of the missing veto would provide "understanding", and we both know that's never going to happen. There's too much ego and prestige at stake to be honest about what really happened to that infamous veto, how and why it was given a "high confidence" figure, and why it was overridden in any quantitative manner. You'll just sweep it under the rug like you always do.
IMO it's beneath contempt that the peer reviewers were handed a snow job and never told anything about that veto. That's the worst example of pure BS that I've ever seen in a published paper, ever!
