Saturday, February 16, 2013

Speaking of this Turbulent Scientist fellow, I hear he simulates fake accretion disks around stars and black holes.  He calls the result of these simulations "data."  Let me tell you, that's just a bunch of hooey.  Can he compare his results directly to observations?  Heck no.  So he can say whatever he likes, and no one can point to REAL data and tell him he's either right or (more likely) wrong.  Is that science?  Look up the definition of science, and you tell me.

Just another reason to ignore this horror-show of a blog.  Bah.


  1. Actually the definition of data includes that which is produced artificially you rabid anti-theorist!

    Oh and I'm involved In several projects to compare my well crafted models to your precious observations. At least my simulated data has much more spatial resolution than what you could ever hope to get from your handful of photons. Not to mention I can shrink million year timescales into seconds! Can you do that with your clusters?