Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry
I'm quite certain the model predates spectral analysis of comet plumes - and that is was originally based upon the theory that the outer planetary enviroment is primarily water and other light elements. In any case, the clays and pyroxenes were not expected.
|
Wiki says that until 1950 comets were thought of as rocks covered with ice. Fred Whipple changed that in 1950. I guess that means we were both wrong.
Quote:
There are better reason for throwing out many assumptions that were based upon a relatively small universe. I don't think the language is strong, because supernova researchers do keep changing their methodologies; and it makes it difficult to impossible to compare the old data with the new.
Nefarious is a bit strong, but there IS an acceptance of techniques used when the results agree with expectations that would not possibly be acceptable if someone used the same techniques to try to prove an alternative theory.
|
Unless that alternate theory fits better. That goes back to doing it yourself. The fact that it would be hard isnt really an excuse when you want to change so much.
Quote:
|
I have been hearing this for decades...but the bandwagon keeps marching.
|
And fusion power has been 10 years away for half a century. Dosent make either one not true.
Quote:
|
If you look at all the big money proposals that are funded, they are generally very conservative - difficult attempts to push existing theory another decimal point, and they often fail to do so. That said, it is difficult to see how it could be otherwise, because there are a LOT of wacko paths out there - more on this, when there is time.
|
Pushing decimals can give some results. It is why there is a difference between classical and modern physics.
Yes, there are alot of wacko paths out there. That is why I keep telling you to present your results in a manner acceptable to mainstream physics. You cannot go from wacko to mainstream without it.