Scientific American and Science censorship...
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Definitely Demolition - Proven FACT, 9/11 could not possibly have been other than an inside job.
Next: [Guardian] 'Climategate' debate: less meltdown, more well-mannered argument
From: eric gisse on 23 Jul 2010 15:20 Benj wrote: > On Jul 23, 11:32 am, maxwell <s...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: > >> > Bohr worked very hard to solve Helium and he couldn't do it. So, if I >> > am able to do it, that should be a pretty big deal if I could do >> > something that not even Bohr himself could do. But the response is >> > complete silence. I have sent my findings to 3 other scientists by >> > email and nothing so far. You, too ignore this finding, which based on >> > my additional research couldn't possibly be "uninteresting". >> >> > I recently read where someone else showed that some object like was >> > significantly red-shifted in front of a slow moving opaque galaxy, >> > thus showing that the red-shift could not be due to the object >> > receeding. That person also lamented that his paper waited, and waited >> > and waited to be published with no comments. >> >> > So this is another way science can keep its "mono-theory" culture, by >> > simply ignoring and denying anything which goes against established >> > dogma. > Now that you are posting in this thread again, will you now tell us what your training in the sciences is? I said that you had none, but that made you upset so I asked you what your training was. Then you stopped posting in the thread. > Absolutely correct. I have long been a critic of QM based on these > facts. QM is widely touted as one of the great "success" stories of > physics based upon the calculation of hydrogen spectra using the > theory. But it's found that helium is a nightmare and anything else > virtually impossible! Helium is perfectly tractable using approximations, as is everything else. > Some "success". But those in positions of media > and authority in science present a unified front. Since you would view any uncertainty as weakness, I'm not sure what would make you happy. > The "Big Bang" is > Fact. Do you have evidence that says otherwise? > The Red shift being due to "expansion" is FACT. Do you have evidence that says otherwise? > In the quantum > world that it is "impossible" to know something exactly is FACT. Really, what makes you say that? Observational facts are recorded all the time in the quantum world. > There is no life in the universe except on Earth (we will allow some > primitive bacteria could exist, but certainly not any beings "smarter" > than us!). Do you have evidence that says otherwise? > Evolution is FACT. Not "theory", mind you, but FACT! Ah, one of those people. [snip rest of the rant about how much Benj hates science]
From: spudnik on 23 Jul 2010 17:06 oh, come-on; the doppler-interpretation of redshift is just an assumption. what about the medium of space -- do you believe in a perfect vacuum? thus: does that make it a "grey body?..." that's so interesting, because also drag & power from wind is to the 4th power of velocity, which is why it is so hard to make efficient windtrubines -- just ask the Netherlanders. (NB, I haven't derived either of these laws on paper, so.) I also had heard that all of our sensors on Moon had been turned off, for no particular reason, with no way to turn them back on, again (including seismometers, whcih was how it cam "up" at school). > One correction was to take into account the fact that, as the temperature > is not uniform and the Stefan law is in T^4 you cannot compute the > outgoing radiation using the average temperature. thus: also, note that Hubbard's "peak oil" acolyte, Deffries (sp.?) at Royal Ducth Shell -- a half-British co. -- wrote his book about it with a resolution of the peak for the very next year after publication (2003 or 4, as I recall .-) his later book, _Beyond Oil_ (a-hem, or "Petroleum") is also a great expose' of the industry's assumptions & methods. of course, the most mythical one has to do with mere fossilization, and dinosaurs, based upon the stratigraphy of hollow rocks; he does not really address that, but I do; "Surely you're joking, mister Hubbard!" --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net
From: Androcles on 23 Jul 2010 17:18 "franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bfe4db5d-b2f6-4794-b158-7907421bae3e(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... I have posted the complete article on sci.physics: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee This hasn't received any relevant comments yet, and I would appreciate any constructive advice you could give on this. This is part of the work I am doing on my theory of everything which describes a new cubic atomic model which can be found at: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html ============================= Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. I'm not wading through your crank theory to get to a nugget of truth embedded in it.
From: franklinhu on 23 Jul 2010 19:16 > ======================================== > You are quite refreshing in your attitude, why are you are wasting your > time on a stupid bigot like Draper?- Hide quoted text - > Well, because PD isn't stupid - he is obviously established in the field and has a wealth of knowledge that I will never be able to attain as an amateur science investigator. The internet is a wonderful thing to do research - it allows me to comb through of what is avaliable in an instant. This was impossible prior to the creation of search engines. However, not everything is on the internet. So I rely on posters like PD who do have the scentific background to act as the ultimate human search engine. So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then this really probably has never been done. He provided references which I searched to confirm that while books and books have been created on the subject, none of them used the approach that I created. What is apparent in the historical record is that after trying fruitlessly for years to solve helium, they gave up until quantum mechanics came along and provided a way to approximate a solution. PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely and competently explain the issues at hand. I have complained in this post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet, but even negative comments (as long as they are based on facts and not insults) help me probe the weaknesses of what I am proposing. Most of the time, I find these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract from what I am researching. Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that would be. So, good work PD, thanks for sticking with us crazies. Now, you (Androcles) on the other hand won't wade through my TOE because it starts off defining the aether. Here is yet another example of how anything not conforming to the 'mono-theory' established dogma gets ignored (getting back to the topic of this thread). Even us crackpot cranks have our own form of "censorship". I think we would all do well to not rule things out before even considering them. My little web site can be probably be read in its entirety in half an hour and the main page in less than 5, so I don't think there's that much to "wade" through. Like other scientists, you just stick your head in the sand, cover your ears and say "I can't hear you" when you see anything not conforming to your dogma. http://franklinhu.com/theory.html Read it, understand it, then get back to me.
From: eric gisse on 23 Jul 2010 19:42
franklinhu wrote: [...] > So if I ask PD if anyone has extended the Rydberg formula to explain > the rest of the Helium, Li, Be and he comes back with nothing, then > this really probably has never been done. Nor can it, even in principle. The Rydberg formula describes Hydrogen only, and not even the fine & hyperfine structure. [...] > http://franklinhu.com/theory.html > > Read it, understand it, then get back to me. People who don't know what they are talking about have no business theorycrafting. |