Trustworthy Reasoning vs. Incomplete Models: The Debate on Qualitative Modeling

[big-egg]

What should we trust:

a) self-consistent reasoning that is supported with observations

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm

or

b) calculations in incomplete singularity distorted models of the universe

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994879

Should qualitative modeling come first?

 

[TeV]

What should we trust:

a) self-consistent reasoning that is supported with observations

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm

Looks appealing so far..

 

[Phobos]

From (a)...

We are living on the surface of a gigantic nucleus called Earth, from whose kernel the atomic nuclei that build us were cast away in the moment of the Earth’s creation. Initially the Earth was bright blue star that cooled with the extinction of the source of atomic nuclei in its core. The production of new atoms in the innermost depths of the Earth makes its interior hot and accounts for its volcanic activity and lava upwelling mid ocean ridge.

For starters, what observational evidence is there to support this? Looks like a non-starter to me.

 

[sage]

it is a little difficult to understand what he is saying. it will be helpful if you summarise the basic ideas of this fireworks theory.

 

[Chronos]

chronicles of riddick. i saw the trailer.

 

[TeV]

For starters, what observational evidence is there to support this? Looks like a non-starter to me.

Got you .
Phobos,I was joking .Flowers,big "nucleus of Earth" and stuff.. .Heh..If only the cosmologic theories were reducible to such level..
But the flowers,symmetries,they are still beautiful ( appealing), aren't they ?

 

[Phobos]

a) self-consistent reasoning that is supported with observations

Note: this qualitative approach to science is being discussed in big-egg's other topic...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29666&page=1