Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
[snip]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by VanderL
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
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] |
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? |
This is an earlier post of mine.
VanderL has already (partially) answered one of these questions ("In terms of verification/falsification, by what method(s) could/will the Rosetta mission results contribute to any qualitative verification/falsification?")
The questions on the source ECM document(s), the role of hypothesis formation and testing, model building and testing, and criteria for assessing internal consistency and consistency with Rosetta results have not yet been answered.