Okay just reading your response and this thread does need to move to "Not Quite Science" and I will explain why Finiter it is nothing personal, I do like your attitude. If you note above I moved a discussion with "Rev" along the same lines.

At the moment you are basically surviving by trying to guide your theory thru the cracks. You aren't putting up testifiable or falsifiable results of your theory and anything I show you there is "doubt" about the result.

In science there is always "doubt" we never close the lid on anything and accept them as absolute facts.

So you are asking us to prove your theory wrong you are not trying to prove your theory right. There are no undisputed "facts" in science so I will never be able to disprove your theory nor would I even bother trying.

Above I showed you scientific observations that showed Absolute Space was inconsistant with observation. So you turned the argument around and basically argue since I don't have a proven structure of space therefore I haven't disproven Absolute Space. You are simply ignoring the observations until I can prove some other structure.

As per above science doesn't work that way Absolute Space is dead to beyond accepted scientific certainty. You want to revive it you have to provide a testifiable or falsifiable result for us to reopen the case ... that is how science works. We will never close the case but at this stage Absolute Space is dead and buried.

This is sort of how you are dealing with all observations that disagree with your theory.

QM for example kills your theory dead as you have no mechanism to explain the results. So what do you do you deny QM "it's a mistake and hasn't been proven" according to you. Sorry QM will never be proven science doesn't work that way but all the crazy observations are real so if you want to put forward a theory of the universe it has to cover those observations you can't just ignore those observations.

I don't want to discourage you or try and stop you questioning science and cosmology tenants but within science we have rules the same as maths or any other discipline because without them it all breaks down and there is confusion about what is scientifically accepted and what isn't.

At the moment your theory is inconsistant with scientifically accepted results. So you need to provide proof that we have got it wrong or move discussion to "Not quite science".


Last edited by Orac; 10/13/11 02:26 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.