|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |