View Single Post
Old 3rd March 2019, 08:57 PM   #155
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I would not go so far as to say that it seems you are lying, but I will say that there seem be to some inconsistencies here. And not just in Mills failing to meet his promises.

There are quite a few posts in this, and predecessor, threads which lay out - in considerable detail - mismatches between Mills' "theory" and "the results of experiment" (I'm ignoring the fact that Mills' theory is riddled with inconsistencies). And over in the BLP sub-Reddit, I've posted others (e.g. Mills' theory on the CMB gets the second and third TT acoustic peaks wrong).
Again, with this "wrong" thing. Please post Mills figures for the peaks and post the experimental figures. Mills figures are probably pretty close, and that would be a first approximation and with no curve fitting parameters. BTW Mills doesn't believe in a big bang plasma fireball with acoustic waves. His waves are strictly gravitational, no plasma required.

Similar comment re "validators", with the addition of my examination of one (Booker's PDFs) has revealed serious flaws, so much so that I suspect that, in these documents, he's actually a deep-cover skeptic, signalling to any scientist reading them that he doesn't accept any of it (despite what the words say, at face value).
Name your favourite 'flaw' from Booker's analysis and I will try to address it here.
Proposing that Randy Booker is a deep cover skeptic is just ... weird. Conspiracy theories can be real, but wow.
markie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top