On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:35:07 GMT, k p Collins wrote:
Yeah, and what I see is an alternative explanation or model of existing
results - but no predictions of as yet unobserved results, nor any indication
of where or how to look for them. IOW, I don't see anything in your
explanation that takes us any further than we've already been.
Recall that Ptolemy's epicyclic model of planetary motion was a) self
consistent; and b) a good predictor of what would be seen within the
experimental abilities of the time. Kepler provided a simpler, more elegant
model, but its key advantage was that it indicated where observations would
deviate from Ptolemy's model, _if_ the observations were refined enough.
However, it took astronomy a while to refine its techniques to the point
where those observations were conclusively in favour of Kepler's model.
You need an experimental program before you will be taken seriously. IOW, you
need to predict what will be seen that can't now be seen. O'wise your model
is no better than the existing one. The fact that it explains things in a way
that avoids entities you don't to accept as existing doesn't matter one way
or the other, BTW.
The question of whether you predicted dark energy or not is one that I can't
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."