NASA's Kepler spacecraft has discovered the tiniest solar systemso far

On Jan 26, 9:15*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 08:07:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
If we can’t revise history in order to reflect the whole truth and
nothing but the truth as based upon the best available science, then
perhaps nothing now or of the future really matters.

History is in the past. It can't be revised. Except, perhaps, by
George Orwell.

Obviously you do not agree with speculating or deductively
interpreting as to whatever any image of our moon or that of Venus
might have to offer.

If we are talking science, I believe in making observations,
developing theory to explain those observations, and then testing that
theory against experiments and additional observation. Speculating
about images is not scientific; deductive interpretation needs to be
supported by theory.

So, what makes you think any other images of
space exploration that have usually been heavily edited, stacked and
even false colorized can be trusted, as approved according to your
mainstream status quo that gets automatically hyped and published as
well as into textbooks, as though it’s the word of god?

Stacking and color reassignment are valid image processing techniques,
used to extract information that would not otherwise be above the
noise level. These methods don't create data, they merely present it
in a different form. The methods are understood, and applied openly,
so those interested in using the images scientifically know how they
have been processed.

I don't know how to interpret "trusted" in this context. Astronomical
images contain information, and it is a mark of the expertise of the
observer how effectively and accurately that information is
interpreted.

Without initial speculations, perhaps there’s be no need of developing
theories.

Quite so. The scientific process often starts with speculation. But no
honest speculator stops there. No honest speculator presents his ideas
as anything other than what they are- unsupported. A scientist takes a
bit of speculation, formulates a hypothesis, and sets about developing
a theory and testing that theory. Only then do you have an idea solid
enough that it can enter into the realm of serious scientific
discussion.

You present speculation as if it merits the same weight of respect as
solid theory. If you believe that planets can form out of nebulas
without the formation of a corresponding stellar system, you need to
demonstrate how. This is a perfectly tractable problem- most of the
underlying physics is well enough understood. So attack the problem.
If you can demonstrate a set of physically realistic conditions
whereby a terrestrial planet can condense directly out of a dusty
nebula, you'll have a powerful publication, and invitations to major
planetary conferences.

I speculate and subsequently theorize on behalf of all kinds of nifty
stuff, but only if it fits within the laws of physics and has at least
some degree of deductive interpretation via science, but obviously
that’s still not good enough for you and your know-it-all Sheldon
Cooper alter ego.

You speculate. I've seen no evidence of any theories, and no evidence
that your ideas are consistent with the known laws of physics. They're
you're ideas- the burden to demonstrate their physicality is on you.
Nobody is obligated to believe what you say, or even give it much
thought, if you can't show that the underlying physics is solid.

So, even if that mainstream status quo history which includes science
is bogus, apparently you're good with it. And you calling yourself a
scientist is some kind of a Joke?

In other words, as long as you get to obfuscate and/or deny/ecxlude
all the science that didn't spew from your butt, makes you a happy
camper.

What original mainstream science are you actually responsible for? (or
do you only plagiarize?) In other words, where are your bricks of
qualifications?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”