3 ms·
Because they just fudge the math to match the old theory. They're frauds that are uncomfortable with change. Changing the theory to match new data so many times
by pokemongoaway 9y ago
Because they just fudge the math to match the old theory. They're frauds that are uncomfortable with change. Changing the theory to match new data so many times over the last century and acting like the theory hasn't failed or really had to change at it's core (and when other theories have predicted CMB and other measurements more closely) is the definition of fraud in science.
- AstralStorm 9y agoIs it really? Are you arguing for attaching version numbers to theories? This is not someone in backyard presenting a random set of equations that are not interlinked as a theory. Not epicycles.
- pokemongoaway 9y agoI'm not arguing for that since anyone who is steeped in the topic can determine a general "change history." I didn't claim it was someone in their backyard, did I? No it is job stability. No one who doesn't believe in string theory will get a specialized degree in it, for example. HN seems open to criticizing generalities like, "science publications are often fabricated" or "academia is too closed," but you start getting too specific and the folks who have most of the academic budget for a mainstream paradigm will come out of the woodwork to discredit skeptics using straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and various disingenuous methods of thwarting reasonable opposition. For example, just look at the percentage of worldwide physics funding goes toward big bang based fields vs the rest.