Look ma, no maths!

[Le Repteux]

Heliocentrism was not based on observations before we had good telescopes, and Copernicus even said that he only invented it to facilitate calculations, which means that he did not think it could be objectively tested.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Ophiolite]

Heliocentrism was not based on observations before we had good telescopes, and Copernicus even said that he only invented it to facilitate calculations, which means that he did not think it could be objectively tested.

Are you serious? Do you not realise the observations of planetary motion were what led to the notion of Heliocentrism? The calculations that were facilitated were calculations of planetary motion, seeking to predict future observations based upon past observations.

 

Yes, can you remember me which "points in my hypothesis are contrary to observations" please?

There are numerous examples. Simply reread the thread and note where other members have pointed these out to you. I give you an example to start with. You assert that neutrinos have an internal structure. No observation has suggested that this is so.

[Le Repteux]

Are you serious? Do you not realise the observations of planetary motion were what led to the notion of Heliocentrism? The calculations that were facilitated were calculations of planetary motion, seeking to predict future observations based upon past observations.

I'm as serious as Wiki can be. It says that nothing could tell that heliocentrism was right before Galileo could see the planets going with his new telescope, which means that all the scientists who proposed that hypothesis before him did not base it on evidence, but on speculation.

 

There are numerous examples. Simply reread the thread and note where other members have pointed these out to you. I give you an example to start with. You assert that neutrinos have an internal structure. No observation has suggested that this is so.

I said that if neutrinos had mass, and that mass was due to the small steps between bonded particles, then neutrinos should have components. It was thus an hypothesis, not an assertion.

[xyzt]

 

 

I said that if neutrinos had mass, and that mass was due to the small steps between bonded particles, then neutrinos should have components. It was thus an hypothesis, not an assertion.

For your education, neutrino has mass and its mass has nothing to do with the crank theory of "small steps".

Contrary to the crank theory of "small steps" neutrino has no "components".

Edited December 8, 2014 by xyzt

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

This nonsense has gone on far too long. There is no model, there are no testable predictions, there is no evidence to back up any of the claims.