SevenSpheres wrote:I really didn't want to spend a lot of time arguing this. I was just trying to ask what, in your opinion, would confirm or disconfirm EU.
You wrote two contradicting statement, IMHO. To me, convincing are evidence. Evidence are various and numerous, though. There is no single and simple observation that could definitely prove or disprove borh theories, at least unless You have some basic knowledge about subject, but apparently You havent. If You arent ready to read about the subject a bit, this disscussion is pointless for You.
SevenSpheres wrote:(If you really want a debate you can try CosmoQuest...)
I've read various debates about EU vs mainstream and I'm still, maybe even more, convinced EU is far more correct than mainstream. I see no point with debating it again, not from my point of view. For me, situation is clear. I started this thread and disscussion due to my engagement with Celestia developement and community, to share my knowledge, but I supposed to disscuss with people really interested in (astro)physics.
SevenSpheres wrote:And what about math? Relativity and (mainstream) Solar System dynamics have a lot of math supporting them. EU and Velikovsky have none.
Well, again. What you suspect by asking such a questions? Just naming a very broad subject, with no single example or so? Additionally, You claim things about evidence for the subject You are asking about. So, have you deeper knowledge about mainstream, EU and Velikovsky or not? If You have, then why not to post particular examples to disscuss? If you havent, then why you claim various things in advance about these subjects?
But I will try to disscuss anyway. Math alone cannot support any physical model. Ultimate evidence for physical theory is observation. Math is a intermediate tool only. Moreover, every math model is limited, as we still officially dont have theory of everything. So, proving some aspects of theory in our neighbourhood is not an proof this theory would work for rest of the Universe. Relativity is not an exception.
But even inside experimental community there are discussions about correctness of Relativity. For example, retired GPS director, Ronald Hatch, clamed explicitely, that GPS disproved Special Relativity. Sound shocking?
But it's a fact. Why then everywhere we can read GPS sattelites are flying proofs for SR corectness? Try answer yourself.
And just for clarification: EU have some math too. Not so advanced, what is obvious in context of their very limited resources. Does it support EU? As math alone cannot support physical theory, so it's not the proper question
Example: Recently, retired Dr Donald Scott develiped mathematical model oh Birkeland current thread and he started searching for estimated patterns (https://electric-cosmos.org
- see links on the bottom).