cogzoid
Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005
|
| Quote | | The crystals are perfectly packed spheres differential is size. Since their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament, the answer to your second question is no. |
Let me try to understand this. The stars are caught in a perfect crystal of dark energy. Of course, bringing quintessence into this only raises more questions. First off, what do you mean by "their distribution is uniform below the level of the firmament"? Don't be afraid of concise physics jargon, Paley. I'm certainly not. Do you mean these balls of quintessence are smaller than the Planck scale? That's the only thing I can guess you meant from that statement. Even if that is true, why wouldn't they still have a crystalline lattice with a particular structure? Does it have the lattice of a diamond? table salt? or any of a myriad of other options? Every crystal has axes. Why would quintessence crystals be different? Of course, I know the real reason they have to be. Because you are afraid of proposing a theory with falsifiable consequences.
| Quote | | for thought itself can move objects of differential size. |
experiment?
| Quote | | I think this not only proves my own theory, but answers the only critque evolutionists ever really had. |
You're getting ahead of yourself, little breeches. What proof? You haven't even finished your theory. Besides, I haven't even started with the critiques, my friend.
| Quote | | Empirical support for the quintessence can be found here. Of course, my crystalline sphere has important multidimensional properties as well |
I think you meant "Empircal support for super-fluid solids is here." Nothing is mentioned about quintessence. Nothing at all. The properties of baryons cannot be transferred to other forms of matter. Not even fermions. Why do you jump to the conclusion that your quintessence balls are described by Bose-Einstien statistics instead of Fermi-Dirac statistics, or an entirely different set of statistics all together?
You forgot some questions, Paley:| Quote | | Can I hold a solid piece of ether in my hand? If the ether isn't made of baryonic matter, how do we know that the 1976 paper applies to it? If it is made of baryonic material, then can we make some in our particle accelerators? What is the characteristic length scale of this crystal? Wouldn't the axes of this crystal change as we pan our telescopes across the sky? How do the stars get trapped in it? Are the stars even made out of baryonic matter? Are there any independant tests we can make to see or demonstrate this ether? Or is this just another unprovable conjecture on which your theory relies? |
You want to start with a clear theory, don't you? You don't want to be accused of dodging honest questions about your theory.
So far, I've given you nothing but honest, straight questions about your theory, Paley. I'll need you to flush it out more (and correct the previous formatting errors) before I can begin to critique it.
--Dan
|
)