Kennedy Space Center

What's perhaps especially useful about this model is that it demonstrates the limitations of viewing a theory's predictive power as an indication of its truth-value. For all its absurdity, Aristotle's model was capable of predicting the motions of the heavens, despite being so utterly, totally wrong.

Then it's a good thing that RET doesn't use Aristotle's model any more, isn't it?  Again, I'm not saying that Aristotle's model was 100% accurate.  However, it was more accurate than the previous model.  And in turn, later models became more accurate than Aristotle's.  That's how science works, take the current model and make it better.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on December 06, 2009, 05:24:23 AM

What's perhaps especially useful about this model is that it demonstrates the limitations of viewing a theory's predictive power as an indication of its truth-value. For all its absurdity, Aristotle's model was capable of predicting the motions of the heavens, despite being so utterly, totally wrong.

Then it's a good thing that RET doesn't use Aristotle's model any more, isn't it?  Again, I'm not saying that Aristotle's model was 100% accurate.  However, it was more accurate than the previous model.  And in turn, later models became more accurate than Aristotle's.  That's how science works, take the current model and make it better.

What holds true for one model may hold true for another. Predictive power != truth.

Quote

In addition to these methods, we also have an excellent understanding of how stars work. Our models of stellar structure are excellent predictors of the properties and evolution of stars. As it turns out, the mass of a star determines its life history from day 1, for all times thereafter, not only when the star is on the Main Sequence. So actually, the position of a star on the H-R diagram is a good indicator of its mass, regardless of whether it's on the Main Sequence or not.

Have you ever observed nuclear fusion? Have you ever seen an atom? Ever noticed that Quantum Mechanics is based on probabilities and assumptions to prevent the model from falling apart? We know absolutely nothing about stars. We have never observed a single one beyond wavelength. We know even less about the "atom"... after 100s of years chemists have failed in their original goal: making gold, and they have failed to describe the nature of matter as well!

For low cost observations of nuclear fusion (non government), try General Fusion.
http://www.generalfusion.com/files/evidence.pdf
For observations of a star beyond "one wavelength", try here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21793.0
I will also be happy to restart the Solar Neutrino thread, starting with plenty of relevant hardware information.
Next, "We know even less about the "atom"... ", except that we know it doesn't look like proton-neutron pudding. We also know that we can smash atoms together and make pretty pictures like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics
I would say that is something.