Decided to join the kooks (temporarily)...

On Feb 21, 10:06 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 07:23:56 -0800, "Helpful person"
wrote:

What everyone seems to have missed, and what is generally not
understood by most scientists and lay people, is that all a theory has
to do is explain observation.

Many lay people may make that mistake, but not most scientists. A theory
must also be testable, and it must be falsifiable. Something that simply
explains an observation without meeting these additional requirements is
not a theory at all.

This is what makes my theory so powerful! I can just ignore
measurements and all forms of testablility!

The model that we usually choose is
based on what is easiest for our senses to understand.

Once upon a time, perhaps. But such narrow thinking seldom hinders our
understanding these days. Modern cosmology, relativity, quantum
mechanics, and many other areas deviate significantly from anything we
are capable of understanding based on our senses (something that
disturbs some people to no end.)

So that is what is causing all the disturbed people; for no purpose
whatsoever, they are being deliberately disturbed by today's
cosmologists with theories that defy any senibility.

(I apologize if you are simply maintaining the parody here, but that
isn't clear, and I can't let something so important remain to be
misunderstood.)

Austin (still looney...btw, great post Chris, I just have to maintain
my looney point of view for a while here)

AustinMN wrote:

Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

The answer is that space is not really empty. There really is an
"either" out there that holds everything together. It is a superclear
(almost totally radiation-transparent), zero-mass material that has a
varying viscosity.

The viscocity of the "either" near earth is almost zero - so close to
zero that we can't detect it at all with things like satellites. But
it is enough to keep the solar system in place as it orbits the earth.

Oops! You're not a consistent kook :-)
If the Earth is the center, is there a *solar* system at all?

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

Anders wrote:
Oops! You're not a consistent kook :-)

This presents a problem?

If the Earth is the center, is there a *solar* system at all?

Good catch.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

AustinMN wrote:
By the time
one reaches the edges of our own galaxy (which actually takes up about
1/3 of the volume of the universe) the "either" is about as viscous as
grape jelly


If the galaxy rotated around the Earth once each day, simple
mathematics shows that it would need more than grape jelly to hold it
together.

I trust, then, that your theory doesn't just have the Universe smaller
than traditional models, but it also has the Galaxy smaller.

John Savard

On Feb 22, 6:15 am, "Quadibloc" wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
By the time
one reaches the edges of our own galaxy (which actually takes up about
1/3 of the volume of the universe) the "either" is about as viscous as
grape jelly

If the galaxy rotated around the Earth once each day, simple
mathematics shows that it would need more than grape jelly to hold it
together.

I trust, then, that your theory doesn't just have the Universe smaller
than traditional models, but it also has the Galaxy smaller.

The galaxy is bigger, but the universe is smaller. The either has a
viscocity of grape jelly, but a tensile strength that is somewhat
higher, more like cotton thread.

Austin (still deliberately ignoring facts)

On Feb 21, 12:37 pm, (Anders Eklöf) wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos, devised to show that one does not
need to be a nutcase to come up with bizzare ideas:

The Earth does not move. The whole universe revolves around the earth
once a day. now the obvious question is "Why doesn't the universe fly
forcibly apart?"

The answer is that space is not really empty. There really is an
"either" out there that holds everything together. It is a superclear
(almost totally radiation-transparent), zero-mass material that has a
varying viscosity.

The viscocity of the "either" near earth is almost zero - so close to
zero that we can't detect it at all with things like satellites. But
it is enough to keep the solar system in place as it orbits the earth.

Oops! You're not a consistent kook :-)

The consistency of the either is variable.

Austin (always latch on to a key word out of context and ignore the
substance)

AustinMN wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos,

I would dispute the lack of Goblins in your model as well as the fairy
dust anisotropy.
I would point out that your model falls down on the differing rates of
rotation for stars and the sun ?

JC (P.I.F.R.A.K.Q & Bar) Retd.

On Feb 23, 7:56 am, "John Carruthers"
wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
Note for humor impared: The following is for entertainment only.
Those who take it seriously need serious help.

Here is my theory of the cosmos,

I would dispute the lack of Goblins in your model as well as the fairy
dust anisotropy.
I would point out that your model falls down on the differing rates of
rotation for stars and the sun ?

JC (P.I.F.R.A.K.Q & Bar) Retd.

Such important details aren't realy relevant in the theory of
Irelevantivity.

Austin (still looney...I need a vacation...bad)