wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).

That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.

No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion:

Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

I have personally discarded the "Devine Creation Theory"
and most of the JFK assassination theories. I have also
discarded the "Red-Shift Theory" of the expansion of the
universe as will most astronomers in the near future.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:

Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).


That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.


No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion:

Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't.

I have personally discarded the "Devine Creation Theory"
and most of the JFK assassination theories. I have also
discarded the "Red-Shift Theory" of the expansion of the
universe as will most astronomers in the near future.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light
isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?

73, ac6xg

wrote:

A theory is just an idea of why something is a particular way(s), or
appears to act in some particular way(s.)

Of course, most any theory appears COMPLETELY believable, otherwise a
person would appear a fool to even form or advance such a theory.

At to whether the theory is valid or not? That takes a level of belief
beyond what is needed to form a belief in a creator! (especially given
history on how we have had to constantly "tweak" our theories into
compliance with new discoveries!)

Probably 90% of our equations, observations and "facts" are in some type
of error. Our use of time in equations is but one example--and belief
in the validity of "earth time" in equations has become widely accepted,
but is in error. (well, OK, it is valid in bank amortization
formulas--because those formulas are simply "figments of imagination"
and have nothing to do with science ...

However, if I spun up the moon to revolve once ever 48 hours, that would
NOT make use of the moons spin valid in equations ... even if I
expressed it in equations like: moon-speed = (earth-speed * 2)

Something, or some effect, unknown to us belongs in those equations!
Sheer logic provides the proof ...

JS


JS

wrote:

...
A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble
thrown around by the clueless.
...

Really?

Hmmm, Einstein was the first to propose such a thing--one equation, ~1-2
inch long, explaining everything ... gawd, what a shame he died before
you could point out his error(s) to him ...

JS

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted
from Webster's).

That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it.

No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion:

Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop
dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition
was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again.

snip remaining word games

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light isn't
red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?

I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

wrote:
Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop
dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition
was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again.

Why is it OK to beat me about the head and shoulders
for accidentally omitting an adjective and not OK to
point out your omission of same?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light
isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding?


I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.

It is your assertion that there is an effect with dominates Doppler
shifting on any scale?

73, Jim AC6XG

Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop
dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition
was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again.

Why is it OK to beat me about the head and shoulders
for accidentally omitting an adjective and not OK to
point out your omission of same?

I doubt that you've ever accidentally omitted an adjective in your
life.

All your posts are rather cleverly crafted to produce maximum
consternation, I will give you that.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Kelley wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not
a Doppler effect.

It is your assertion that there is an effect with dominates Doppler
shifting on any scale?

No, primarily on a macro (non-local) scale. Let's
say you had a cable stretching from our galaxy to
a distant red-shifted galaxy. What would be your
conclusion if the red-shift continued without
the cable breaking?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com