Dark Energy & the UA

  • 56 Replies
  • 5026 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2012, 01:39:04 AM »
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

True zeteticism is philosophy. I don't fancy myself a philosopher, but to be brief: At it's heart zeteticism is the minimization of inference and a reliance on direct observation and logic. One must seek to minimize (or eliminate) inductive reasoning in favour of the deductive.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2012, 01:48:34 AM »
They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

It's a hypothesis, which I've taken pains to point out to you.  I think dark matter/energy have more support among scientists in the relevant fields, but that doesn't mean they'll ever become more than mere hypotheses, especially if predictions made by either idea are falsified in experiments.

This stuff is pretty far out there, though, I won't deny that :)
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2012, 02:00:38 AM »
The entrenched hypotheses of Orthodoxy are never touched. Only new even more "far out there" hypotheses are added to the models to protect the sacred Canon of Science. This is how you arrived at "Dark Energy" to begin with -- by building faulty assumptions upon faulty assumptions.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2012, 03:22:23 AM »
They clearly are touched.  Newton's laws had to be completely rewritten with Einstein. We may need another complete rewrite to fit in these new observations, although I'd say we're too early into the investigation to say for sure.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2012, 06:13:03 AM »
"Dark Energy" is nothing more than a placeholder name. Scientific Orthodoxy loves to name things, because the act of naming something makes it seem less mysterious. Why? "Dark Energy".  What is it? "We have no idea." How do you know that it exists? "Because our entire cosmology collapses unless we make 97% of the known universe something completely hypothetical and otherwise unobserved"  Shouldn't you re-consider the basis of your cosmology? "Why? We know our cosmology is right, and now Dark Energy explains the inconsistency." Orthodoxy abhors the Unknown. The Unknown whispers hints of weakness in the ears of the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid the uninitiated learn that the emperor is not wearing clothes. So they name the Unknown to whitewash and explain the unexplainable. 

The zetetic mind abhors such specious hypothesizing. It is enough to know we are accelerating. The exact mechanism is unknown, indeed perhaps unknowable. This is not unsettling to the mind only set on truth. Yet, after years of hearing globularists attack universal acceleration as "magic", we caved and offered up the placeholder name "Universal Accelerator" or occasionally even adopting the name "Dark Energy" to make the parallel more plain. The term "Dark Energy" in this context is analogous to Scientific Orthodoxy's "Dark Energy". It is not meant to represent the same phenomenon.

You are correct. It is a placeholder name. One to fill a hole in an observed phenomena. Like "God," "Thor," Zeus," and "Poseidon" before it. It is quite a fuzzy idea, that's why it's called a hypothesis. The phenomena is the acceleration of other galaxies as they move away. So scientists pondered "Why could this be? If they are accelerating away, we must be as well." After some "mathematics" on a level of which I do not yet understand, they determined that our galaxy is moving as well. We do not feel this acceleration. The only thing that fits with current scientific theory (relativity) is the acceleration of space. Space in which our galaxy is essentially not moving. So "dark energy" was hypothesized. A name given to a currently un-explained phenomena.

Thank you for explaining that your dark energy is not the same as science's. Perhaps you should use a different name? Because, as you can see, it could be easily confused. You don't have to, it's just a thought.

You seem so angry though Ski. I'm just asking a question. Do you have any ideas as to what this "universal accelerator" could be? Or is it the same as FEs "dark energy."
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2012, 07:49:39 AM »
The entrenched hypotheses of Orthodoxy are never touched. Only new even more "far out there" hypotheses are added to the models to protect the sacred Canon of Science. This is how you arrived at "Dark Energy" to begin with -- by building faulty assumptions upon faulty assumptions.

You're kidding, right?  The "entrenched orthodoxy" has been turned on it's head so many times that it's not even funny.  Don't forget that the belief that the earth is flat was, at one time, the "entrenched orthodoxy".
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2012, 01:14:50 PM »
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

And who says scientists absolutely believe in dark matter and/or dark energy? This is a total fabrication from you. There are no scientists declaring that either dark matter or dark matter exists. And no real scientist has closed his mind to alternatives. No real scientist will tell you that he is completely comfortable with either. It is clear that there has to be some big and yet unknown phenomenon that keeps these two problems open.

Of course, if there is a possibility that this matter is out there and is somehow detectable somebody will dedicate his career to the search, but that does not mean that they will ever claim its existence as fact. This "orthodoxy" you mention just does not exist.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2012, 01:31:09 PM »
With dark matter, for example, they'd need to actually find evidence for the existence of these massive, weakly interacting particles that it's supposedly made up of.

They'd need to actually find evidence to continue to believe in these things, but not to currently believe in them?  :-\  Do you still fail to see where Orthodoxy has turned "Science" on it's head?

And who says scientists absolutely believe in dark matter and/or dark energy? This is a total fabrication from you. There are no scientists declaring that either dark matter or dark matter exists. And no real scientist has closed his mind to alternatives. No real scientist will tell you that he is completely comfortable with either. It is clear that there has to be some big and yet unknown phenomenon that keeps these two problems open.

Of course, if there is a possibility that this matter is out there and is somehow detectable somebody will dedicate his career to the search, but that does not mean that they will ever claim its existence as fact. This "orthodoxy" you mention just does not exist.

Don't tell him that, he'll get upset! He may have nightmares, even wet the bed! I'm not cleaning it up.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2012, 02:14:09 PM »
Quote from: Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.

Quote from: Albert Einstein, "Ernst Mach", Physikalishe Zeitschrift 17 (1916), 102; Collected Papers vol. 6, Doc. 29
Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts, and point out the circumstances that promoted their justification and usefulness and how they evolved from the experience at hand. This breaks their all too powerful authority. They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer.

The usual FET description of the scientific community and method is patently false and intentionally misleading.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2012, 02:18:35 PM by garygreen »
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2012, 03:36:43 PM »
Albert Einstein is doing a marvelous job of explaining Scientific Orthodoxy to you, and you still misrepresent him.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. "
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2012, 03:42:26 PM »
"Therefore, it is not at all idle play when we are trained to analyze the entrenched concepts"

Selective quoting sure is fun.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2012, 03:49:19 PM »
The sentence you just quotes hinges on the existence of the Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy did not exist in the halls of science, he would not have made the quote. I am not ignoring the rest of the quote -- I highlighted part of it for the benefit of whomever posted it. Einstein is suggesting that scientists need take more seriously analyzing "the entrenched concepts". He is not saying the entrenched concepts do not exist. How can you twist the quote to say there is no entrenched ideas or a priori assumptions in the scientific community?  ???
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2012, 03:54:21 PM »
And scientists are trained to question ideas the become entrenched.  I don't see what's so difficult about this  ???
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2012, 03:56:33 PM »
They clearly are doing a poor job as a whole if the Orthodoxy still exists, correct?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2012, 04:01:09 PM »
The Orthodoxy, as you put it, is constantly being questioned.  Change can be slow because scientists require more than telepathic contact with luminous moon creatures to completely rewrite everything.  They need reproducible demonstrations of shortcomings in existing models and new models that match with our observations better than existing ones.

It's happened in the past and continues to happen today.  Once again, I don't see the problem.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2012, 05:07:51 PM »
Albert Einstein is doing a marvelous job of explaining Scientific Orthodoxy to you, and you still misrepresent him.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. "

That's the setup.  You're ignoring the end of the quote where Einstein says, "They are removed when they cannot properly legitimize themselves; they are corrected when their association with given things was too sloppy; they are replaced by others when a new system can be established that, for various reasons, we prefer."

Of course the exists a scientific orthodoxy.  No one is denying that.  Sometimes those orthodoxies are very difficult for the scientific community to abandon.  No one is denying that, either.  Nevertheless, many, many deeply held scientific orthodoxies have been uprooted throughout the history of science, like aether, caloric, absolute space, geocentrism, etc.

My point is that the description of the scientific community as one that never questions/abandons its most fundamental assumptions is patently and demonstrably false.  This is because, as my Feynman quote makes clear, science already knows that it does not currently (and might never) have access to the fundamental laws of physics.
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #46 on: August 17, 2012, 05:12:28 PM »
The Orthodoxy, as you put it, is constantly being questioned.  Change can be slow because scientists require more than telepathic contact with luminous moon creatures to completely rewrite everything.  They need reproducible demonstrations of shortcomings in existing models and new models that match with our observations better than existing ones.

It's happened in the past and continues to happen today.  Once again, I don't see the problem.
Also, only Ski is claiming that the ideas of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are part of the beliefs of the "Orthodoxy". Neither Einstein nor any other scientist has been shown to even talk about Dark Matter or Dark Energy in any way consistent with the idea of "orthodoxy".

Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #47 on: August 17, 2012, 06:39:50 PM »
Dark Matter and Dark Energy as just place holder names for the physical phenomena they can't explain yet.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41868
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #48 on: August 17, 2012, 07:59:15 PM »
Albert Einstein is doing a marvelous job of explaining Scientific Orthodoxy to you, and you still misrepresent him.

"Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things can easily attain an authority over us such that we forget their wordly origin and take them as immutably given. They are then rather rubber-stamped as a "sine-qua-non of thinking" and an "a priori given", etc. Such errors make the road of scientific progress often impassable for long times. "

You do realize that you are quoting a man who upset the previous "scientific orthodoxy" with a theory that became the new "scientific orthodoxy", don't you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2012, 05:59:54 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2012, 06:09:51 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2012, 06:22:36 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2012, 06:31:47 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2012, 06:56:17 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.
I completely agree with you. FET has just one hole: the complete and total incapacity to come up with one single prediction that is better than what real science predicts. Even the "the Earth looks flat" thing only comes up equally good as real science, and only if you are looking towards the sea or large lake from a place lower than 40000 feet or so, and you ignore the fact that the border between water and sky looks perfectly sharp.

And real science has more holes than anyone can count. If the number of holes was relevant in any way, FET would be unbeatable. Thankfully, the number of holes is irrelevant.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #54 on: August 20, 2012, 08:15:20 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

Maybe I will.... But then wouldn't I get banned like TK?
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #55 on: August 20, 2012, 02:51:16 PM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

Maybe I will.... But then wouldn't I get banned like TK?

No, not if you do it in the Angry Rants section.  You can even cuss at us there.

*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Dark Energy & the UA
« Reply #56 on: August 21, 2012, 04:51:40 AM »
Ski, they're called "Dark" matter & energy because we can't see them. As for the energy, there's something there behaving like an energy. We haven't observed anything of it other than the fact that galaxies accelerate. Therefore, it's dark.

Wow.  And people try to say FET is full of holes.

It is. What is your UA? What powers the Sun? How does the Sun appear lower, when light would have to speed up going into the atmosphere for this to happen? How does the atmosphere magnify and dim the sun & moon at the same time? How do inertial navigation systems work? Why is it more fuel efficient for planes/rockets to take off and fly east rather than west? How do pendulums work? How do the tides work? How do the phases of the moon work? How does a lunar eclipse work? How does a solar eclipse work? How does the sun, moon, and any/all other celestial objects stay up and away from the Earth? These are all rather basic questions I would think, so since FE wants RE to prove itself so badly, but only in ways FE likes, then why doesn't FE do the same?

Things are almost always given placeholder names before anyone discovers what's really going on there. Like the UA for example? FE is allowed to give placeholder names, but if anyone from the "scientific orthodoxy" does it from something that is actually observable that hasn't been worked out several times to the point where no one can currently show the model to be false, then they're awful, lying, making things up?

You should make an angry rant.  I bet you would make a good one.

Maybe I will.... But then wouldn't I get banned like TK?

No, not if you do it in the Angry Rants section.  You can even cuss at us there.

Eh. I can't get angry at people who are mentally challenged, it's not their fault.
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.