0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.
No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,
Quote from: Bogie_smiles on 03/02/2019 22:27:34Oops. I like to think that everything in science is connected, and a good model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with generally accepted scientific observations and data. If there is an inconsistency, a lot of them too, the integrity of the whole model is in question, and so my heros are still cowboys and astronauts, lol.No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent, but reality needs to be internally consistent. A model is a model because the reality is not known, or because the reality is know but does not help the derivation of answers.But are u talking about some sort of model proposed by Robitaille?My heroes are Aetherists & Atheists & Greenies.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 23:03:23No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,Seriously?
Quote from: Kryptid on 03/02/2019 23:04:54Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 23:03:23No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,Seriously?Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It has to give better answers than the other models. (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.A model can be any silly looking thing u want. If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 00:22:39Quote from: Kryptid on 03/02/2019 23:04:54Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 23:03:23No, a good model does not have to be internally consistent,Seriously?Yes. A model needs three rules. (1) It has to give good answers. (2) It has to give better answers than the other models. (3) It has to be unambiguous (which is already covered in (1) anyhow i guess.A model can be any silly looking thing u want. If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc. I have fun trying to make my model connect to known science in every way possible, limited by my layman level understanding of things, and then I find fun in speculation while the scientific community works at getting to a consensus on what I speculated about, and with scientific credentials behind them. I am doing more than speculate when I make the observation that you are having fun finding unaccredited sources to piece together something that you know the serious science enthusiasts will rebel at. Tell me I'm right.
A model can be any silly looking thing u want.
If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 00:22:39A model can be any silly looking thing u want. That won't make it a good model.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 04/02/2019 00:22:39If it is not internally consistent then u insert some wordage that covers the hole. Use a virtual particle in there somewhere if u like. Or insert something crazy like E=mcc.Or insert aethons, photaenos and praethons...
Yes
No aethons photaenos & praethons are posited as being real
not some kind of model
(alltho electrons & protons might not exist
but aethons photaenos & praethons or some equivalent must exist).
Yes u either posit something or u dont.
If u show me one i will tell u whether i think it is a model. It will be real or a model or a mathtrick, or it can be a combination of real plus mathtrick, or a combination of real plus model, but it cant be a combination of model & mathtrick.
Yes, there are articles on google about the likely truth of electrons etc.
Aether is correct we know.
I wouldnt be surprised if electrons & protons didnt exist, it wouldnt hurt
but there is no liklihood of aether & aethons not existing, praethons being less likely.
Unless u posit u have nothing.
Aether has been observed because the aetherwind has been measured.
That aether is made of aethons might not be testable but how can u possibly say that that conjecture is not scientific.
Yes, & homeopathy in general is a lie & creationism is a faith story. Any intelligent person can soon see that.
Here i ask myself why i am arguing with u about possible or future tests & testing when i cant get any sense out of u re the existence & results of perfectly good existing tests.
No i wouldnt say that there was a conspiracy re the existence of electrons & protons.
I myself dont believe in a nucleus with orbiting electrons.
arguing about whether aethons exist or are possible or can be tested is a waste of time.
I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 21:10:17 I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.Then you are on the wrong web site.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/02/2019 07:31:20Quote from: mad aetherist on 03/02/2019 21:10:17 I love his stuff re the liquid metallic Sun.Then you are on the wrong web site.I look forward to your critique of Robitaille's errors.