[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12[3]456789 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 11:37
Author: Mike Drake - 2 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Response to Waqidi
In reply to: Waqidi - 2 Jun 2001 's message, "Re: Response to Waqidi" on 11:36

Hi Waqidi,


I think I actually looked up the article on microfiche during a single, wide-ranging research fit. But to be completely honest, I can't say for sure (it was at least a couple of years ago, and I retrieved the quote from my own notes for my posts here).

I will try to track this down for sure. But tell me: Assuming the source checks out, what will you therefore concede?


I have already clearly stated why the dark matter issue is a red herring. In any case, we do have a good idea of how dark matter will behave in its gross gravitational aspects - after all, its apparent gravitational effects are one reason it was postulated 70 years ago!*


Here, however, you make a fair point. I clearly erred in speaking of a ".ooo" average.

First of all, my treatment of the Burbank contradiction is statistically tendentious: I picked a friendly contradiction and then limited the sample set to that single instance. Clearly, most of Yogananda's historical reporting is probably more or less accurate.

A similar problem emerges with my use of the stellar companion hypothesis. Yogananda has made other empirically contentful claims that are true.

What I should have said is that every falsefiable prediction Yogananda has made has turned out false. I think this is true, but in any case puts the burden on you to come up with counter cases. You must show one other falsefiable prediction that Yogananda has made that turns out true (or at least indeterminate).




* I am aware Yogananda got the stellar companion idea from Yukteswar. I'm not aware that I stated otherwise.

* Classical mechanics still applies in the gross aspects of the stellar companion model, whether it's dark matter or some other, hitherto undiscovered kind of matter. Y&Y postulated that our sun orbits around a stellar companion. So even if you posit some exotic "theory of gravity for dark matter" that differs in its gross aspects from the standard model, you can't get around the fact that the result would be the perturbations I described. In other words, no matter the theory of gravity, our Sun's movement around the common center of mass will describe a gross motion that will perfoce be measurable by dint of readily observable perturbations.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.