<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Leo Vuyk</i>
<br />Sorry Tom, I could not get in contact with the pdf. any ideas?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The parser on this message board does not recognize that punctuation is not part of a link. I removed the final period. The link should work now.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...dark energy...black holes...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Neither of these phenomena exist in Meta Science. The universe does not expand, so there is no need for dark energy to accelerate expansion; and "black holes" are just collapsed Mitchell stars with high gravitational redshift (i.e., probably quasars).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Sun spots are supposed to be the remnants of former Comets.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">??? Then why the 11-year cycle? Why the drift in latitude during the cycle? Why the magnetic polarity reversal each cycle? Why do spots sometimes appear in groups, and sometimes not? Why can't we track any single spot for more than a few solar revolutions? Etc. I don't think this idea is viable either.
Your ideas are too non-mainstream to be acceptable to the mainstream, and too non-Meta-Science to be acceptable to Meta Science. If you stand on the middle ground between two adversarial camps, you are likely to get shot at by both sides. -|Tom|-
