ChaosKnight wrote:
So is this a theory or not?
"Archimedes was possibly the first scientist that is known to have described nature with axioms (or principles) and then deduce new results from them. He thus tried to describe "everything" starting from a few axioms. Any "theory of everything" is similarly expected to be based on axioms and to deduce all observable phenomena from them." - An excerpt from Wikipedia on "
Theory of everything"
All theory of everything (ToE) so far as known are hypotheses of nature, be it conceived in the discipline of
epistemology, or theoretical physics, construed with their own
philosophy of science.
You raised many issues; however, I will just focus on one main issue at the moment. I believe by resolving this, the consequences of the slippery slope fallacy, be it yours or mine, would be autonomously resolved.
I agree with your proposed scientific inquiry with an order of magnitude estimate, can analytically conclude the momentum shift required to deflect the ion tail of a comet to be on the same order of magnitude as the solar wind pressure, especially with fast moving comets.
Nonetheless, your this method of inquiry is flawed for the case of Comet 96p/Machholz that had made several visits near the Sun. What you had proposed is merely the
a posteriori techniques of quantitative prediction for quantifying and predicting the behavior of physical objects as empirically observed, and it is a fool's errant because it cannot conclusively prove that this is the reality of the observation without first proving the axioms of its
a priori posit. You just simply assume the fundamental cause; there was no proof for the fundamental cause you had proposed.
Moreover, without considering the observed anomaly, it is irrational to be so adamant about the proposed analysis can yield conclusive scientific proof to explain the observations as per se.
Recapitulating, in 2002, 2007 and 2012, Comet 96P/Machholz was at perihelion at approximately the same maximum speed and approximately the same distance from the Sun. In 2002, the gas tail deflection at perihelion was perpendicular to the alignment of the Sun and the nucleus of the comet, this demonstrated an anomaly as compared to its gas tail deflection in 2007 and 2012, which were observed to be almost aligned to the alignment of the Sun and the nucleus of the comet; your argument with the postulation of momentum shift is the primary cause for the gas tail deflections of Comet 96P/Machholz as observed is untenable.
It was near to solar minimum in 2007, yet the gas tail of Comet 96P/Machholz was quite aligned with the Sun at perihelion. It was near the solar maximum in 2002, yet the gas tail of the comet at perihelion was perpendicular to the Sun and the nucleus of the comet alignment. Your argument with the postulation of solar wind pressure primarily causes the gas tail deflections of Comet 96P/Machholz as observed, is also untenable.
There are more anomalies of Comet 96P/Machholz in their case studies that would also conclusively debunk your propositions, but I will only highlight two here. These are already more than sufficient for the qualitative analysis in its empiricism that refer to reality with the provision of empirical evidence; you did not provide any empirical evidence with your delusory postulations.
These resolves for the paradoxes are really very simple to understand; even the average high school physics students would have the cognizance for the basic qualitative analysis.
Although the UVS qualitative prediction for the deflected comet gas tail as per se might be eventually falsified, it would not be by this fallacious proposition of yours that you so adamantly insist, which can only promote its illusion of knowing in its cognitive paradox that insidiously corrupts its perception.
Unless you have new evidence or new insights to suggest otherwise, I am done with reviewing this flawed analysis of yours, and reject the postulations that suggest the comet tail deflections for Comet 96P/Machholz were primarily caused by the momentum shift of comet interacting with solar wind pressure. Your proposal was severely lacking on the epistemology process of scientific inquiry, and I suggest you should investigate your flawed reasoning process and the
cargo cult science you are professing. Anyone keen to explore the fallacies of the proposal can pm me for the details of the qualitative analysis and the supporting facts gathered from reputed official sources.
It's good to rationally inquire into every aspect of a proposition whether dialectically or pedagogically to rigorously test a hypothesis like what you are trying to do here. But if you adamantly stick with the fundamental of conventional knowledge to review this UVS hypothesis against advice, and not consider its paradigm shift at all, IMHO, you would inevitably spot numerous contradictions in the UVS propositions against conventional knowledge with your filtering process. And one who argues these on different premises can never arrive constructively to any concrete conclusion at all.
In the UVS context, the BOTSS, or the dual-core magnetic Ring Center as postulated, is a vortical resonant in the center of the Heliosphere with all known and unknown stuff in the Solar System vortex impelled by the dual-core Galactic Center in the Milky Way galactic vortex. It correlates with the barycenter coordinate of the Solar System, but this does not embody the postulated dual-core magnetic Ring Center. Not enough for this entity was known at the moment for me to be very specific about it, but we think its effects were manifested in several empirical observations; there are sufficient grounds in the UVS context for making its inference that could be proven or falsified with proper inquiries. And this dual-core magnetic Ring Center is consistently based on the UVS model, and it was also coherent in the UVS worldview.
We had weeded out numerous errors and misconceptions of the UVS postulations and propositions in qualitative rigors with good public feedback, as well as with new empirical evidence gathered, and are still continuing to do so as a standard practice. I am sure there are still lots of error and blind spots in UVS that are yet to be uncovered and then relearn from their verified reviews; we are agnostic on any of the UVS qualitative predictions or the UVS postulations.
As for the postulation of aether in UVS, you should read up on "
Waves structure of matter" by Dr. Milo Wolff, who was a former Professor of physics in NUS. His this aether-based theory won him the
2010 Sagnac Award by Natural Philosophy Alliance. If I were to publish my work, I would do it there; no thanks to those physics journals that had discriminately rejected the work of Satyendra Nath Bose on the original Bose-Einstein Condensate with prejudice.
And you are asserting false dichotomies with rants in equivocation to make the case for your false accusations with your prejudice and discrimination; please refrain from such trolling acts and trolling is against the rules of this forum. If you have a rational point of view supported with evidence or proof for discussion, or have a constructive suggestion to offer, you should succinctly present it for consideration like a man of science, instead of making ad hominem assaults that seem to be irrationally flustered in your cognitive dissonance when your obvious error was indicated to you. I will not take the words for it on those oxymoron rants of yours, or be bothered at all to respond to those remarks that stoop so low. Please keep whatever stuff you are smoking to yourself, I know some sad people enjoy it, can get high but also becomes reckless with it, so I wanted to stay more than an arm length away from those puffs.
Peace out.
