Hi All,
I just wanted to express my appreciation before the
group for Dick's chorus to PROVE things with EVIDENCE.
Having not read Mr.Cater's book either I still see no justification
as Dick has stated for Mr. Cater being able to claim things as
"fact" when at best he may or may not have a logical theory.
Just to rehearse a standing theme, the art of science is
in having a theory and then through testing and the scientific
method, proving it to be a viable and thus possibly correct
theory. A theorem must be observable, (the 11 by 14 glossies),
repeatable, (in this case you must be able to take repeated
pictures of the original glossy), and falsifiable. Being able to
test or at least put up a theory to rigorous examination and
re examination is a must for the scientific method. A true scientist
must show that he or she is humble enough to at least consider
the possibility that their personal theory is wrong. I cannot in
fairness comment on whether or not Mr. Cater adheres to the
scientific standard, but if we are to derive what the rest of the
book reads like from the exerts that Dean supplies us with,
one would not get the idea that this was so.
The very idea that something is stated as being an absolute
"fact" can be at times a rather ridiculous contention. Impartial
scientific review should be equally willing to state that one is
uncertain
about the ultimate correctness of a theory. This can result from
the data required to test the theory being incomplete or in doubt.
I ask any serious thinker if we are not in a similar condition where
the hollow planet theory is concerned. We have only drilled down
a small portion of the way through the crust of the Earth. Declaring
FACTS as absolute in the realm of the unknown ought to be avoided.
If a theory is to be given any respect some attempt at formula and
mathematical modeling should be included and if it cannot be then
any theory about soft and hard particles and frequency shifts is only
a theory and nothing more, no matter how logical it appears to be
on the surface.
Some of you may be familiar with the new book out on the
hollow earth written by the father and son team Kevin and Matthew
Taylor who are from Australia. In their book, "The Land Of No Horizon",
they present very impressive arguments in logic detailing their theory
of planetary formation and gravity. I have read reviews of their work
and am sad to have to cast a shadow over their efforts. They do not use
math and computer modelling nearly to the the extent necessary by which
they should have proven their case. My hat is off to them and admittedly
the task they set before themselves was quite a daunting task to propose
a scheme in which all planets start off as solid and then due to the
force
of gravity reforms itself into a hollow shell structured planet.
In the computer program I wrote, Multi.exe, I prove that the
logical
chain in their reasoning is flawed using equally logical and more
importantly
calculated mathematical modelling proving their error for anyone who
requires
"something more than logic" to convince them.
In my book, no book which cannot be said to follow the scientific
method using the twin pillars of mathematical formula and logic should
have
any right to be declared FACT. At best, the only way theory based on
logic
alone and dealing in the tangible (measurable) realm of science has any
right
to respect without such support is to be totally logical and if the other
pillar of
proof is not possible it should be due to difficulties in organizing such
proofs
and NOT because of the laziness of the theorist who uses "slight of pen"
to
induce others to believe in his ideas!
For anyone interested enough to check out my program they will
note
that not only do I put forth ideas that I have thought up which seem like
interesting
possibilities but I also frequently list reasons why my ideas may be
incorrect or of
a questionable nature.
Scott
To review my program Multi.exe simply submit to these two conditions and
e-mail me at [email protected]
with the words "I agree" in the subject line which indicates your
acceptance of my terms. Thanks for your interest!
- Not to send this program to anyone else because it is an unfinished
work in progress, AND - To send Scott a full reaction within 10 days of receiving the
program.