drrayeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Laird,
>
> I see your analyses as a fascinating devil's
> advocate challenge to popular conventional thought
> about planet formation in our solar system.
> Similar analyses may well underlie actual
> experimental tests--or even ongoing projects like
> Rosetta.
>
> However, meaningful possibilities must be subject
> to measurements supported by experimental testing:
> the real devil is in the details. It is here
> that Velikovsky founders--not that he is alone.
> As pointed out by Duane in this thread, some
> conventional models of planet formation adapted
> specifically to challenge Velikovsky also turn out
> to be inconsistent with more detailed
> measurements. Bring on the next generation of
> scientists.
>
> It is this next generation of scientists that need
> to find ways to take us to the next level that new
> observations allow.
>
> Ray


I think "this next generation of scientists"
will require a reset
as the head of the Rosetta Mission stated
"We need to rethink the formation of comets and the origins of the solar system" (paraphrased)

that would require having no bias as to the "preferred way" or "preferred starting ingredients"
whether its aliens,God,EU, or accretion theory, etc
any proposed theory should be able to explain new discoveries without major additions
i.e., how does the distribution of dark matter affect the accretion theory?
since the accretion theory was proposed before the dark matter "discovery"

all known data should be shown
justification for any dating shown be shown,
such as radionuclides, rather than "billions and billions" of years ago