Aether Displacement

The evidence in your brain will never count as evidence. So science will never count as evidence if it is stored in your brain, because your particular brain has no means of logic to determine fact from fiction.
Also wrong.
And not even a good try on your part.
 
Actually its woo, if you know what is really happening... which I do.

So the field of science which is responsible for the most accurate predictions in all of science is woo? Please explain this using your future, superbrain. This is all beyond my primitive, biologists brain.

Science is only interesting if you are a listener, and not creative.

From what I've seen the opposite is true. Science rewards the creative, either with positions due to ingenious theories or with new products to sell for the creative businessman. Woo is what rewards you if you're a listening.

Besides, you're the one here demanding that we just listen and accept without supporting your arguments at all.

when you come up with a better theory, science reads really badly.

Better in what way? It's not more parsimonious. It doesn't have more explanatory power. It doesn't solve any unsolved riddles. Tell me, exactly, in what way your hypothesis is "better" than the leading theories. Oh and being better at being bullshit is not better in science.
 
That's what you assert the cause of the offset is, others who are more knowledgeable in the field, feel differently. Now why is that? Perhaps it's because your explanation isn't parsimonious in that it asserts that there are two causes for the same phenomenon.



Now, again, I'm no physicist but this seems problematic. Light is lensed around a submarine due to the optical properties of water itself. What you're suggesting would require that the aether possess similar optical properties as water does, which means that we could see it.

No it doesn't.
 
So the field of science which is responsible for the most accurate predictions in all of science is woo? Please explain this using your future, superbrain. This is all beyond my primitive, biologists brain.



From what I've seen the opposite is true. Science rewards the creative, either with positions due to ingenious theories or with new products to sell for the creative businessman. Woo is what rewards you if you're a listening.

Besides, you're the one here demanding that we just listen and accept without supporting your arguments at all.



Better in what way? It's not more parsimonious. It doesn't have more explanatory power. It doesn't solve any unsolved riddles. Tell me, exactly, in what way your hypothesis is "better" than the leading theories. Oh and being better at being bullshit is not better in science.

Science predictions have been based on measuring something like speed of a falling object. Once science has nothing to measure it fails very badly. I predicted things that were impossible to measure from the Earth. The bubble around the Galaxy, the bubbles coming from Black Holes.. lots of things. I didn't measure anything, I rebuilt the universe from scratch, and that model only had one direction to go. That was to push particles. And if you push particles together you get bubbles. So in 2004 I said that there would be a bubble around the Milky Way, I drew the bubble, and said how it got there. It was recognised in 2007. I didn't need to measure anything, I just had to rebuild the universe from scratch using logic.
 
@mpc --

Then the comparison is hopelessly flawed and you'll have to devise a new one.

No, I don't. It is your conceptually deficiencies which are not allowing you to understand the correctness of aether displacement. Aether was first postulated as the carrier of light. No one has ever expected you to be able to see aether.
 
Science predictions have been based on measuring something like speed of a falling object. Once science has nothing to measure it fails very badly. I predicted things that were impossible to measure from the Earth. The bubble around the Galaxy, the bubbles coming from Black Holes.. lots of things. I didn't measure anything, I rebuilt the universe from scratch, and that model only had one direction to go. That was to push particles. And if you push particles together you get bubbles. So in 2004 I said that there would be a bubble around the Milky Way, I drew the bubble, and said how it got there. It was recognised in 2007. I didn't need to measure anything, I just had to rebuild the universe from scratch using logic.
Except for the slight flaw that you have ZERO EVIDENCE, ZERO SUPPORT and ZERO PREDICTIONS (including the fact that you can't model one damn thing accurately) from your theory.
You can't explain any current observations, nor come up with testable new ones.
Way to go.
 
Except for the slight flaw that you have ZERO EVIDENCE, ZERO SUPPORT and ZERO PREDICTIONS (including the fact that you can't model one damn thing accurately) from your theory.
You can't explain any current observations, nor come up with testable new ones.
Way to go.

I posted it all over the internet, I have lots of proof.
 
Still no actual evidence, merely unsupported supposition, and no results to show.
You can't model anything.
Fail.
As usual.
 
The evidence in your brain will never count as evidence. So science will never count as evidence if it is stored in your brain, because your particular brain has no means of logic to determine fact from fiction.
So no one else can trust their brain but you can trust yours and you have all the answers?

Are your parents brother and sister or is there some other reason you're so deluded?

I posted it all over the internet, I have lots of proof.
Assertions are not proof, else every religion would be proven true and every crazy person yelling on the street corner about pixies stealing his thoughts would be true.
 
So no one else can trust their brain but you can trust yours and you have all the answers?

Are your parents brother and sister or is there some other reason you're so deluded?

Assertions are not proof, else every religion would be proven true and every crazy person yelling on the street corner about pixies stealing his thoughts would be true.

But the bubbles were found after I posted this. And not only that, I perfected my theory.
 
You mean the "bubbles" that are nothing whatsoever to do with what you've been claiming? Those bubbles?
And no, you haven't got a theory, let alone "perfected" it.
 
You mean the "bubbles" that are nothing whatsoever to do with what you've been claiming? Those bubbles?
And no, you haven't got a theory, let alone "perfected" it.

Funny how a few posts ago you were making out that my post was a form of proof..

"Yet you fail consistently to show it here. "

And now that I post it, you are too obnoxious to even take account of it.
 
Back
Top