I’ve already explained this explicitly, but you still haven’t gotten it straight. The Big Bang theory eliminated the need for a cosmological constant. That’s why Einstein dropped it from his field equation in 1929. If the universe essentially exploded from a point, as the Big Bang theory describes and Hubble’s galactic recession observations confirmed, then a cosmological constant isn’t required to explain why the universe hadn’t collapsed under its own gravity.Guys, the cosmological constant describes the pressure exerted by empty space. Einstein pegged it to be static in 1917. Hubble determined galaxies were moving apart in 1929, which naturally means the cosmological constant was larger.
The cosmological constant was resurrected in the 1990s when we found that the cosmos was accelerating apart. During Daniel Fry’s time, it had been abandoned. That’s why this prediction is so significant – it flew in the face of the conventional wisdom of the time, and yet 40 years later he was proven to be right.
Nope. As I've already very clearly explained, I see the scientific content and the narrative as two separate topics. I think that the accuracy of the scientific predictions is a fascinating issue in and of itself, and may have no bearing on the narrative, which may be entirely fictional.On the flip side, you're positing Fry's story, which most find laughable, is true because of some predictions that turned out to be true?
None of the other scientific predictions in his books have turned out to be demonstrably false.What about the ones that didn't?
In 1958 Daniel Fry wrote the following statement in a letter to N.I.C.A.P., which he also published in his Understanding newsletter:There's no evidence an atomic war was fought 30,000 years ago. What about the Lumerian folks that started a new colony on Mars? Where is that?
“In composing my report of the incident at White Sands, I took great care to present it in such a manner that it would immediately be dismissed as nonsense by the `military’ type of mind, and yet would present all the vital information in such a. manner that its value could readily be understood by the type of mind capable of making use of it.”
NICAP Policy on Contactees | Daniel Fry Dot Com
I suspect that the features of his story that you’re objecting to were inserted into his book so that “it would immediately be dismissed as nonsense by the `military’ type of mind.” But in any case, those elements of his book The White Sands Incident are certainly false.
That’s your position on gravitational field propulsion in general, which you’ve stated and restated ad nauseum all over these forums.Here's my prediction: it won't work.
And that’s fine with me. So let’s stop debating it. I’d rather engage in conversations with open minds anyway: that's why I'm here.