<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Meta</i>
<br />Where is your prediction located, which shows the prediction existed before it was applied to the thin layer of dark material.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Many predictions based on the exploded planet hy[othesis (EPH) appeared in my 1993 book (2nd edition 1999, with predictions unchanged), <i>Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets</i>. Related developments and predictions since then were published in the "Meta Research Bulletin" (see index of past articles at
metaresearch.org/publications/bulletin/index.asp
), with many of them also published in peer-reviewed journals. Selections of these appear on our web site.
The whole discussion of the dark material resulting from the blast wave following a planetary explosion is called the "black axiom" in my book, and discussions of it can be found in the subject index under that name.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You seem to make predictions with the Meta Model as you go along.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The "Meta Model" is a cosmological model for the origin and nature of the universe. It has nothing to do with solar system specifics such as the black axiom.
New predictions constantly appear, but always based on the same EPH model. And I am always very careful to distinguish PREdictions from POSTdictions. (People challenging paradigms have to be especially above-board and open in their behavior.) For example, this coming Sunday, we will release predictions on our web site (to appear in the June 15 Meta Research Bulletin) about the nature of comet nuclei in connection with the upcoming July 4 impact of a massive probe into a comet nucleus to find out what it is made of. The mainstream model has issued "descriptions" that cover all reasonable possibilities, and discussed how their models will accommodate any scenario. The EPH makes one very specific prediction, and places that part of itself that involves the nature of comets at risk to be falsified if the specific prediction is wrong.
If you "wait for the dust to settle" (wait for considered analyses to appear, and not judge by quick-look "sound bytes" that every expert will issue to reporters on the day of impact to explain why the results support his/her own pet model), the EPH won't be wrong. -|Tom|-
Topic Author
