Be that as it may, it is what many ATMers user, because you cannot explain {put something unexplained here} with your mainstream theory, my {put your pet ATM theory here} is correct, even though the twain may not be related.

Example: because you cannot explain to me what {dark matter} consists of with mainstream physcis, my theory of {the electric sun} must be correct, because the failure to explain {dark matter} means that mainstream physics is flawed, whereas {the electric sun} is based no Hannes Alfven's plasma cosmology.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

What do you mean with "many ATMers", I would say almost none, where are the examples?

Where your example goes wrong is that if current theory cannot explain a certain observation, maybe an alternative worth considering.

The new model should be evaluated on it's own merits.


Cheers.

(my bold)

I guess that's why the following threads are so long, what with all the proponents of ATM ideas anxious to show just how well their ideas fare, wrt consistency with astronomical observations:

* How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories?

* How good are the best alternative cosmologies, in their own terms?

* How good are the best alternatives to modern astrophysics theories?

There's also a 'method' thread that is relevant: How should we determine which of competing theories is most likely correct?

Cosmology is quite irrelevant to this thread for the moment.

Cheers.

I believe the third thread is titled "How good are the best alternatives to modern astrophysics theories?" (my bold)

Which is only marginally relevant, as we are talking about comets instead of stars.

Cheers.

And, boy, did I ever see Starboy use the false dichotomy fallacy here. And, yes, I've seen it either said directly or implied in many other ATM discussions. Funny you had so much trouble noticing when it was used.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder, but one has to admit, here on the board a new ATM theory is started up and then the proponents, instead of putting time into developing the model, quite quickly change to attacking the mainstream model (which is okay, but in its own thread then). Because, only by showing the flaws in the mainstream theories can they validate the lack of detail in their own theories (and I use the term loosely).

Up to now, we still, after over 500 posts, have no idea what the EC model is, and it is directly related to EU/PU, because it is always coming back to Alfven, Peratt cs.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Exactly. Far too often the response to "How do you answer [fill in here] in your idea?" is "How does the mainstream answer [fill in here]?" While this may be a good question for Q&A, it is irrelevant to the validity of the idea being presented, which must stand or fall on its own.

And I seriously doubt there will ever be an EC model.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Well, maybe VanderL, after reading the Icarus special issue will come up with a new theory.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)