Quote:
Originally Posted by VanderL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
In which peer-reviewed journal may one read the details of this "electric comet model" (a reference please)?
|
Not yet. |
Would you mind clarifying please?
Do you mean "there is no such peer-reviewed paper yet" (or similar)?
Or "I,
VanderL, have not yet found such a paper" (or similar)?
Or something else?
Quote:
Quote:
When we all have the same (purported) model in front of us, we may be in a position to challenge and question this assertion.
If we do not all have a copy of it - to read, study, etc - in other words, if it's not public, then how could it be verified, falsified, or even understood?
|
It can be verified/falsified by the Rosetta mission, it can be understood qualitatively as described in the electric comet pdf.
[snip]
|
Would you mind clarifying please?
First, is the T&T PDF (see reference earlier in this thread) the primary (public) material presenting the "
electric comet model"? If not, what is that primary source?
In terms of verification/falsification, by what method(s) could/will the Rosetta mission results contribute to any qualitative verification/falsification?
Specifically, what role(s) will hypothesis formation and testing play in such verification/falsification?
What role(s) will model building and testing play in such verification/falsification?
What role(s) will peer-review (or review in general) play in such verification/falsification?
Assuming that the ECM "
can be understood qualitatively as described in the electric comet pdf" (my emphasis), what criteria could - in principle - be used to assess:
a) internal consistency (of the ECM)?
b) consistency between the ECM and results from the Rosetta mission?