However, for Ophiolite to say my proposal "fails as a consideration" is the same attitude which exiled Aristarchus to exile, and also which caused Linus Pauling to call Daniel Shecthtman a "quasi scientist" and to crusade against him and his quasi crystals.

My statement was not an attitude, but an objective assessment of your hypothesis, which entirely ignores established observations.

My statement was not an attitude, but an objective assessment of your hypothesis, which entirely ignores established observations.

 

Exactly as Aristarchus was rejected because of established observations. Exaclty as Linus Paling rejected Quasi Crystals because of established observations.

 

Bingo!

 

Thank you, Imatfaal.

Exactly as Aristarchus was rejected because of established observations. Exaclty as Linus Paling rejected Quasi Crystals because of established observations.

 

Well, in fairness, I did reject your water planet hypothesis because of established observations regarding the equations of state for water.

 

If your hypothesis contradicts those established observations, the onus is upon you to explain the contradictions or to demonstrate why the established observations are incorrect. This means that you must understand the established observations!

 

Claiming victimization does not work in science.

 

As an example, the proponents of cold fusion took that same route when their hypothesis was roundly criticized in the 80s. However, if they were to present credible and reproducible evidence supporting their hypothesis today, the scientific community would embrace cold fusion once confirmation was in.

 

None of this is personal in the slightest, so please don't feel victimized. It is all about your hypothesis and data.

Well, in fairness, I did reject your water planet hypothesis because of established observations regarding the equations of state for water.

 

If your hypothesis contradicts those established observations, the onus is upon you to explain the contradictions or to demonstrate why the established observations are incorrect. This means that you must understand the established observations!

 

Claiming victimization does not work in science.

 

As an example, the proponents of cold fusion took that same route when their hypothesis was roundly criticized in the 80s. However, if they were to present credible and reproducible evidence supporting their hypothesis today, the scientific community would embrace cold fusion once confirmation was in.

 

None of this is personal in the slightest, so please don't feel victimized. It is all about your hypothesis and data.

 

There is no onus on me for anything. I am not feeling victimized. I will only remind you that at one time strict consensus taught strictly that there were only three states of matter, vapour, gas, solid .. then came quasi crystals .. at least, that's what I seem to remember from the original article i read on quasi crystals. The discoverer of quasi crystals WAS victimized, by Linus Pauling no less. These conversations are personal to me, as I grieve while people discard their curiousity and sense of true science for Consensus, pride and gratification that they got 'something' out of the money they spent on education. The present understanding of phases of ice and water can be perhaps likened to an iceberg .,. a tip on the surface, the mass beneath.

The present understanding of phases of ice and water can be perhaps likened to an iceberg .,. a tip on the surface, the mass beneath.

 

This is completely untrue. How can you credibly make an assertion like that when you were not even aware of the equation of state for water just two days ago?

Aristarchus, do you wish to discuss how hard done by you and other great minds in history have been, or do you wish to discuss your hypothesis? If it is the former I have no interest in indulging someone's paranoia. If it is the latter then I would ask you to restate your hypothesis in the light of what you have learned in this thread. We can then move the discussion forward.

Ophilioite and Baric .. discuss away. I presented what I wished to present, said what I wished to say. Have fun.

In view of the failure of the OP to support his unconventional proposal with evidence, or to acknowledge that it is seemingly falsified by observation, could a moderator please move the post to pseudoscience.

Curouser and Curiouser .. Nasa Apod is featuring, again, after several years, the photo which initiated my idea for waterballs in space.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111024.html

Curouser and Curiouser .. Nasa Apod is featuring, again, after several years, the photo which initiated my idea for waterballs in space.

http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap111024.html

 

That's NOT water. It's called the "Waterfall" nebula because of its visual appearance, not its composition.

 

On a related note, there are no horses in the Horsehead nebula.

!

Moderator Note

This thread does not follow mainstream science, and is hence moved to speculation.
When one day the physics community accepts the premises here and decides to operate by them, this thread can be moved back to the mainstream physics forum.