A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Response video to Anton Petrov 0037



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 8th 21, 01:51 AM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Response video to Anton Petrov 0037

In alt.astronomy Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
....
It's a theory. It addresses a tremendous number of outstanding
questions about why our solar system is the way it is, why the moons are
the way they are, why there's such a stark contrast in design from the
inner "rocky" planets, and the outer "gas giants."

....

The main thing about scientific theories is they predict things.
Taking a few observations someone comes up with some rules
that predict something they didnt see in engineering up the rules.
If they're lucky they go out and make new observations and
their predictions are verified.

On theory is better than another if it makes more successful predictions --
not just codifying observations which were known to start with.

--
KenCaldeira @KenCaldeira 21 May 2020 23:28Z
Replying to @EDC_Farmer
The essence of science is prediction. Science progresses by rejecting
models that make bad predictions.
https://t.co/ASx86Ohgp1en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popp...

Making successful predictions is the gold standard of science. If a
theory successfully predicts phenomena that are later observed, one
can be confident that the theory captures something essential about
the real world system.
-- Andrew Dessler, testimony to US Senate, 21 Jan 2014
Ads
  #2  
Old April 8th 21, 02:00 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Rick C. Hodgin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Response video to Anton Petrov 0037

On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:51:26 +0000 (UTC)
R Kym Horsell wrote:

In alt.astronomy Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
...
It's a theory. It addresses a tremendous number of outstanding
questions about why our solar system is the way it is, why the
moons are the way they are, why there's such a stark contrast in
design from the inner "rocky" planets, and the outer "gas giants."

...

The main thing about scientific theories is they predict things.
Taking a few observations someone comes up with some rules
that predict something they didnt see in engineering up the rules.
If they're lucky they go out and make new observations and
their predictions are verified.

On theory is better than another if it makes more successful
predictions -- not just codifying observations which were known to
start with.


I have posted about this many times. It makes many predictions. In
addition to the ones outlined (such as the Earth used to be smaller,
and that there are vessels inside the Earth holding magma, water, the
recycling and reclamation chemicals that will be used when Earth goes
into Venus' orbit and becomes the next Venus):

1) The outer gas giants are manufacturing facilities.
2) The moons are assistance tools in that effort, creating the things
that are required for the manufacture of Earths.
3) The hexagon shape at the top of the planets is a giant door that
opens to let the (what I call pre-Earths) PEs go in and out.
4) Mars will become the next Earth.
5) Earth will become the next Venus.
6) Venus will become the next Mercury.
7) Mercury will become the next pieces of debris in the asteroid belt.
8) The Sun is the lake of fire spoken of in Revelation.
9) The moon might hold the New Jerusalem, as it's almost exactly the
right size for it to be inside of there.
10) If true, the crates we see on the moon are not just craters.
There are the equivalent of tugs that move the moon about when it opens
up to reveal the New Jerusalem, indicating we've gone through many,
many, many cycles, just as we go through many, many, many harvest
seasons on our fields here on this Earth.
11) The pattern we have for God's created system in motion here on
Earth (He created the first apple tree, and the apple tree itself
producing the next generation) is what He did in creation with our
solar system, and the universe. That's a prediction of this theory.
12) And finally, this monumental effort to build Earths is not the
goal of the process, but rather WE ARE! God has created this system to
prove us, test us, demonstrate us by letting us demonstrate to Him, to
the angels, to ourselves, who we are. He offers salvation for free to
EVERYONE just for the tasking, and all who come to Him asking
forgiveness ARE SAVED.

The theory predicts these things, plus many more predictions, such as
that the solar system is this assembly line, that it begins in Neptune,
continues to Uranus, continues to Saturn, continues to Jupiter, and
finalizes on Mars. It takes nearly 800K years to produce a single
Earth, and there are at least 120 in progress right now in various
stages of construction, like an assembly line.

These are some of the things this theory predicts.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

  #3  
Old April 8th 21, 02:03 AM posted to alt.astronomy
Rick C. Hodgin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 37
Default Response video to Anton Petrov 0037

On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:00:08 -0400
"Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:
9) The moon might hold the New Jerusalem, as it's almost exactly the
right size for it to be inside of there.
10) If true, the crates we see on the moon are not just craters.
There are the equivalent of tugs that move the moon about when it
opens up to reveal the New Jerusalem, indicating we've gone through
many, many, many cycles, just as we go through many, many, many
harvest seasons on our fields here on this Earth.


The craters aren't the equivalent of tugs, the craters are produced by
the equivalent of tugs that have been used to align or push the moon
back closed once it opens. They extend out arms which push against the
moon in various places. Or, they maneuver the moon back into a stable
orbit. Something along those lines throughout the many cycles that
have taken place.

And, once again, this is all a theory. I could be wrong.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

  #4  
Old April 8th 21, 02:07 AM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Response video to Anton Petrov 0037

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:51:26 +0000 (UTC)
R Kym Horsell wrote:

In alt.astronomy Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
...
It's a theory. It addresses a tremendous number of outstanding
questions about why our solar system is the way it is, why the
moons are the way they are, why there's such a stark contrast in
design from the inner "rocky" planets, and the outer "gas giants."

...
The main thing about scientific theories is they predict things.
Taking a few observations someone comes up with some rules
that predict something they didnt see in engineering up the rules.
If they're lucky they go out and make new observations and
their predictions are verified.
On theory is better than another if it makes more successful
predictions -- not just codifying observations which were known to
start with.

I have posted about this many times. It makes many predictions. In
addition to the ones outlined (such as the Earth used to be smaller,
and that there are vessels inside the Earth holding magma, water, the
recycling and reclamation chemicals that will be used when Earth goes
into Venus' orbit and becomes the next Venus):


I'm not sure how the "prediction" follows from the theory.
It just seems to be another part of the "theory" under
a whole list of other "and also X is true".

Of course this is allowed. But it isnt a prediction.
And, as I said, one theory is better than another if it makes
more predictions that turn out to be true.
Unless your theory makes "many more" preductions than standard
planetary science or geography noone will bother to look at it
because -- I know this is hard to believe -- but random people
create theories all the time that prima facie are going nowehere
so noone that has any interest in an area will give them a look
unless there is something obviously in their favor.

--
[T]he French Academy passed a resolution in 1775 saying they would no longer
even bother to examine any more proposed solutions for squaring the circle,
so sure were they that it was impossible.
-- http://io9.gizmodo.com/5880792/the-e...d-to-legislate
-the-value-of-pi
  #5  
Old April 8th 21, 02:31 AM posted to alt.astronomy
R Kym Horsell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Response video to Anton Petrov 0037

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 21:00:08 -0400
"Rick C. Hodgin" wrote:
9) The moon might hold the New Jerusalem, as it's almost exactly the
right size for it to be inside of there.
10) If true, the crates we see on the moon are not just craters.
There are the equivalent of tugs that move the moon about when it
opens up to reveal the New Jerusalem, indicating we've gone through
many, many, many cycles, just as we go through many, many, many
harvest seasons on our fields here on this Earth.


The craters aren't the equivalent of tugs, the craters are produced by
the equivalent of tugs that have been used to align or push the moon
back closed once it opens. They extend out arms which push against the
moon in various places. Or, they maneuver the moon back into a stable
orbit. Something along those lines throughout the many cycles that
have taken place.

....


Just to be clear what a "prediction of a theory is":

A theory -- call it T -- is a statement if what is beleived to be true.
A prediction of the theory is another statement -- call is P --
which "follows" from the theory. "Follows" means
if T is true then P must be true; if P is false then T is false.

If you have a collection of statements that dont follow
from your theory that the earth is a squence of spheres
that have another layer added every 5000 years
then they are not predictions. They are either unrelated guesses
or other theories.

At this stage I think it's better to stick to one theory
and figure out what it predicts.

To start you off -- if the earth is a series of layers of
older versions of the earth then it might stand to reason
(i.e. follow) there are voids or other features trapped
between the layers that we might be able to detect.

And (to further help) we know that stanard geology has
identified some layers of the earth and I understand there are
some detected features at the boundaries of the layers
proposed by standard geology.

Given standard geology follows from the theories of
gravitation and theromodnamics and can roughly trace the evolution
of the Earth and other planets from the time they were a bunch
of gas orbiting a proto sun, your theory is not really ahead yet.

In addition, your theory also predicts that layers are built up
on the Earth every (as I understand it) 5,000 years.
One million years ago there were 200 fewer layers and we'd
expect the Earth to be lighter. Maybe lighter enough to have
a lower surface gravity. The moon would have been further away,
the tides would have been smaller and further between.
Some of these would be visibile in the height of trees
(given they need to transport water up to their tops via
capillary action + some quantum assists .

None of these things is known to be true and some of them
we suspect are false.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Response to Dwight oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 4 July 9th 08 09:39 PM
Video sequential video recordings after Apollo 11 - the actual way it happened. J Waggoner History 0 June 23rd 08 06:40 AM
New Space Music Video, STS-120, P6 2B... Help- lost video! Craig Fink Space Station 1 November 11th 07 08:18 PM
Take a look at this Astromart response; RichA Amateur Astronomy 32 January 20th 05 02:05 PM
Cold War Hero - Stanislav Petrov Thomas Palm History 6 July 10th 04 09:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.