To avoid an all too common occurance, let's take your claims one by one, shall we
Jerry?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jerry
The real Catch 22, is that the current standard model lacks the kind of definition Neried insists on seeing in any plausible alternative.
|
(my bold)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
And you can defend this assertion?
I'm particularly interested in the part about what a certain "Neried" insists on seeing in any plausible alternative.
Please be as specific as you can in your reply Jerry.
|
Your reply did not seem to answer this question; perhaps it was unclear, so let me try again ...
1) What "
kind of definition" does "
Neried" insist "
on seeing in any plausible alternative"?
2a) I gather from your reply that, in your view, "
the current standard model" is astronomy based on Newtonian or GR gravity; is that so?
2b) If so, why is astronomy based on modern quantum theory not mentioned?
3) More generally, what is this "
current standard model" you refer to?