A Helical Helix model of the solar system (Hard Evidence)!

[gravityblock]

"Helical Helix: Solar System a Dynamic Process", by Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, is a proposed model for the solar system with hard scientific evidence and data to support it.  Has the mainstream scientific community gotten anything right yet?  And we laugh at the flat earth people. 

Gravock

[onthecuttingedge2005]

"Helical Helix: Solar System a Dynamic Process", by Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, is a proposed model for the solar system with hard scientific evidence and data to support it.  Has the mainstream scientific community gotten anything right yet?  And we laugh at the flat earth people. 

Gravock

flat Earth? hmmm not for a hundred years minimal. 

[gravityblock]

flat Earth? hmmm not for a hundred years minimal.

Is your thinking and reading comprehension really that swallow?  Let me re-word this so a child may understand what I was saying.  'The mainstream scientific theories of today are no different than the flat earth theory of the past.  In other words, the mainstream scientific theories of today are as wrong as the flat earth theory of the past, where they conveniently disregard important scientific evidence and data that is right before their own eyes.  In addition to this, the people who hold onto these convuluted theories of today are no different than the people of the past who wanted to hold onto the flat earth theory.  And, to laugh at their stupidity, is to laugh at your own stupidity'.  I have to write a book to explain a simple statement. LOL

Gravock

[Qwert]

"Helical Helix: Solar System a Dynamic Process", by Dr. Pallathadka Keshava Bhat, is a proposed model for the solar system with hard scientific evidence and data to support it.  Has the mainstream scientific community gotten anything right yet?  And we laugh at the flat earth people. 

Gravock

Religious dogmas are infallible; scientific - not. That's the difference between science and religion.

[hoptoad]

Is your thinking and reading comprehension really that swallow?  Let me re-word this so a child may understand what I was saying.  'The mainstream scientific theories of today are no different than the flat earth theory of the past.  In other words, the mainstream scientific theories of today are as wrong as the flat earth theory of the past, where they conveniently disregard important scientific evidence and data that is right before their own eyes.  In addition to this, the people who hold onto these convuluted theories of today are no different than the people of the past who wanted to hold onto the flat earth theory.  And, to laugh at their stupidity, is to laugh at your own stupidity'.  I have to write a book to explain a simple statement. LOL
Gravock

Its a broad brush you're painting with Gravityblock. I agree there are elements of mainstream science theory that may be in error due to dogmatic accepance of a current paradigm, or worse still, wilfully ignoring new evidence for personal self interest reasons.

But to paint all of mainstream science theory as being based on error is a big mistake.

If mainstream science as a whole was entrenched in dogma, you wouldn't be posting your views on the internet, nor reading them on your led screen. You wouldn't be able to sit on a plane and travel anywhere you wanted to go in the world within just 2 days. You also wouldn't be able to watch a plasma television, talk on a mobile phone, or view the latest pictures taken on mars, mercury, jupiter etc. You wouldn't even be able to merely flick an electric switch to conveniently light up your room, or boil a kettle.

Mainstream science as a collective, may be slow to change long held beliefs, but it's slowness is based on the desire for rigorous debate and testing of new theories before discarding old ones.

As the saying goes, you don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Most new discoveries do not overthrow old theories, instead they often provide new insights, offering a broader or deeper understanding of existing ones.