OT: astronomical distances quantized? Was Re: [XCSSA] Legos and Dark Matter

[xcssa@xcssa.org]

On Tuesday 24 October 2006 20:00, xcssa-admin@xcssa.org wrote:

> Given a sufficiently complex theory with enough unknown variables,
> anything can be explained after-the-observation.  What's generally
> considered the test of a good theory is that it predicts the outcome
> BEFORE the observation, so it can't be said we just rigged the variables
> to make it work with known data.

I agree with this statement more than any other I've read thus far.. :)

As for dark matter..  it's born of the same "theory rigging" that quark theory 
is based on.. "unexplained forces".  Can't explain a force?  Let's attribute 
it to a particle and then get grants and build giant particle smashers to 
find it!  

It's really a shame how scientists  now days push their theories around like 
some high school popularity contest, looking for book deals and grants 
instead of seeking honest peer review and critical comparative thinking and 
experimentation.  When did this start happening?  In the 80's during the cold 
fusion debacle? 

The current PBS specials on string theory makes me kind of ill.  What kind of 
scientific theory bases itself on unobservable postulation?  They just seem 
to be creating philosophy books, shows and getting grants based on real 
theory figired out  30 years ago.

What do you think Charles?

Tweeks