Regarding: "Fundamentally, you take the position of "witness"; in my head, "witness" carries absolutely no weight what so ever as there exists no way to differentiate between truth and delusion. The only "rational" position on such an issue is to ignore it."
What do you mean by "witness"?
Why not call everyone a "witness"?
Does not everone at this forum, and in the world; witness that they have a head on their shoulders?
When you use language, are you not witnessing that you are using language?
What cause have you to single me out for this objection? Everybody witnesses. Do you propose that the attack on the twin towers be ignored because no one could have "witnessed" it? Should the police never call "witnesses" to court because "there is no way to differentiate between truth and delusion"?
Your claim "there is no way to differentiate between truth and delusion" prevents its own discovery!
As how could you arrive at such a conclusion? How could you string an argument together even? As soon as you apply logical consistency, you are appealing to "not contradicting yourself", that is; you are appealing to truthfulness.
So to get to your conclusion you had to negate it on the way.
Logically, there surely must be no way your conclusion can ever be found, as it prevents its own discovery.
The issue of "epicycles" versus "Einstein" is not a truth issue in that way. It is a freedom issue where you may choose either model so long as you are consistent. However the Einstein model gives greater freedom; and apparantly a more accurate view of truth (that more freedom is attainable e.g.).
But the arbitrariness of physics modelling does not mean that truth can not be distinguished. As soon as you try to be logically consistent, you are distinguishing truth to some extent.
This seems a strange comment: "Do you comprehend the problems with the one on Quantum? He completely fails to take into account the consequences of atomic and molecular structure! If you do, the sizes of all the structures go way up and the picture changes completely."
If you did that, you would defeat the purpose of Gamow; which was to exaggerate one aspect of quantum theory at the expense of the others. If you inflated everything, you would be back to square one. It would be like shrinking Mr. Tomkins to atom-size.