Abstract Theory: The Living Universe

[Dean Mooney]

CWingfield... I finally found someone that is thinking the same. Although not a theory perhaps a hypothesis no less. One that should not be dismissed so easily by narrow minded people that can't think at such a large scale. I would love to discuss this further with you via correspondence. I have many analogous thoughts and ideas if my own to share.

The scientific method does not limit the ability to prove or disprove a concept rather it posits that an idea or hypthosis stand the test of time for something to ebcome an accepted theory. So far I have not seen any sound response as to why his idea can be discredited. Most of the greatest ideas were quickly dismissed in our history and have proved to be otherwise.

[Phi for All]

Most of the greatest ideas were quickly dismissed in our history and have proved to be otherwise.

 

[Citation needed]

[Dean Mooney]

Einsteins theory of relativity. Was criticized until by gravitational lensing proved his case.

[Phi for All]

Einsteins theory of relativity. Was criticized until by gravitational lensing proved his case.

 

So some great ideas were quickly dismissed in our history. This is true.

 

"Most of the greatest ideas"? Definitely an exaggeration.

So far I have not seen any sound response as to why his idea can be discredited.

 

Trivially, this idea was based on the Bohr model of the atom, wasn't it? That's a crude model to start with and I think it lent itself to the mistaken metaphors in the OP.

 

It's pretty natural for us to match patterns and imagine small things being larger. And we love anthropomorphizing EVERYTHING, why not the universe?

[Ophiolite]

CWingfield... I finally found someone that is thinking the same. Although not a theory perhaps a hypothesis no less. One that should not be dismissed so easily by narrow minded people that can't think at such a large scale.

I dismiss the idea, in part for the reasons noted in an earlier post. I do not dismiss it through narrow-mindedness. I dismiss it because it is a poorly thought out, ill-substantiated idea, contradicted by a plethora of observations and well founded theory. It is a monumentally dumb idea.

 

Before you start accusing me of ad hominems and flaming, please note I am fully entitled to this view. I claim precedence for the concept, which first occured to me in 1963, or possibly 1962. That said, I have run across many people - especially in their early teen years - to whom a similar idea occurs. Most of us grow out of it when we gain an improved understanding of reality that broadens our mind and our outlook.