Hey there David,

I have no doubt that seeing the word "swindle" used in relation to science is to you like raw meat to a lion. With every post, you demonstrate that you don't care about actually understanding the science. You are cherry picking bits and pieces out of context looking for anything to cast doubt on science.

Case in point: You didn't explain why, or even if, the "Jeans swindle" is relevant to our discussion. The simple truth is that it is not. The fact that you posted it demonstrates you did not understand what you were posting. The article does not say that Jean's mass

__is__ flawed. It says his

__original__ analysis

__was__ flawed. And what was the flaw? I highlighted it red for you: "Jeans assumed that the collapsing region of the cloud was surrounded by an infinite, static medium." Jeans made assumptions to make the calculations easier. This does not cast any doubt on the results that I have posted.

If you really want to understand the science, you can read this paper:

MATHEMATICAL VINDICATIONS OF THE “JEANS SWINDLE”
Michael K.-H. Kiessling

Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University

110 Frelinghuysen Rd., Piscataway, N.J. 08854

The paper begins:

In 1902, J.H. Jeans [1] derived his celebrated dispersion relation

ω^{2} = |k|^{2}c^{2}s − 4πGρ_{0}
governing the evolution of inﬁnitesimal disturbances of a

ﬁctitious inﬁnitely extended,
homogeneous and isotropic, static ﬂuid of mass density ρ

_{0} that is coupled to Newtonian

gravity.

## Bookmarks