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: Androcles on 25 Jul 2010 05:02 "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message news:4c4bfbbe$0$19184$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote | news:NAH2o.328027$m87.95458(a)hurricane... | > | > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message | > news:4c4b1c1c$0$2603$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | > | | > | > | > ============================= | > | > | > Uh oh... Stick to facts, not aether. | > | > | | > | > | Aether is the fact. | > | > | > | > In fact, actually, you are the insane, and that is actually a fact. | > | | > | You have this: http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf | > | | > | In the last sentence before supplement Michelson wrote that Stokes is | > right. | > | | > | Now you know that the Sun is hot and produces the plasma. The Sun and | > plasma | > | rotate (one revolution per 25 days). | > | It is a whirl. The Sun, planets, plasma and everything rotate together. | > | Stokes predicted it in 1845. Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 | > Michelson | > | detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. | > | You do not know it? | > | S* | > " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate " ("plurality should not be | > posited without necessity").--William of Ockham. | > You do not know it? | > "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both | > true | > and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton | > You do not know it? | > What this means is we don't *need* aether for any purpose, therefore there | > is no point in presuming its existence. | | We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as | opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe". That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since there is no aether to breathe there are no gods either. You do not know it? You are insane.
From: troll on 25 Jul 2010 10:19 On Jul 15, 12:00 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > I'm sure you all know that the censored forum supported by Scientific > American, Physics Forums, has taken over "moderation" of > Sci.physics.research. Or should I say taken over censorship of it. > > Censorship for the "control" of science has been a major function of > the popular science press like Scientific American for a very long > time as has been "peer review" and censorship of scientific journals > been a major "control" pathway in science. For example holowarmer > shills like "Sam Wormely" greatly depend upon the popular science > press to provide myriad "cites" that support their current > promotions. It seems reasonable to me that there is a lot of evidence in favor of the existence of global warming. The basic problem with global warming is the evaluation of the potential effects. Liberals will say that a few degrees warmer will be the end of the world, will totally gloss over what a few degrees will actually mean, and will rapidly dismiss the idea that the economic effects of trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions could potentially produce greater damage than the environmental damage from the warming itself with a handwave. They then will try to obfuscate this obvious part of the equation when trying to formulate policy on the subject, and try to concentrate on the scientific falsification of data where it might exist, in order to promote their own policy agendas. However, like with a lot of rhetoric, you usually have shifting subjects. I am not sure if I have ever even bothered to look at that forum to begin with. > sci.physics.research being a prime example of such subversion of real > science. What happens is that science turns into religion. Evolution > is "fact". AGW is "beyond question". UFOs observations are suitable > only for ridicule. Nothing exists in science beyond "official" > positions and advancements are allowed ONLY after they have been > approved and granted blessings by the famous great men in positions of > science "leadership" and authority. The basic problem is that people have to produce verifiable evidence and can not falsify data. A lot of people like the idea that certain things might be possible, and then falsify data in order to try to prove what they want to be true. A lot of these fringe scientific subjects would carry a lot more weight if people could put forth verifiable evidence.
From: Szczepan Bialek on 25 Jul 2010 13:40 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote news:M4T2o.195332$wi5.58019(a)hurricane... > > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > news:4c4bfbbe$0$19184$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... > | >> | > | > | > | You have this: http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf > | > | > | > | In the last sentence before supplement Michelson wrote that Stokes > is > | > right. > | > | > | > | Now you know that the Sun is hot and produces the plasma. The Sun > and > | > plasma > | > | rotate (one revolution per 25 days). > | > | It is a whirl. The Sun, planets, plasma and everything rotate > together. > | > | Stokes predicted it in 1845. Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 > | > Michelson > | > | detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. > | > | You do not know it? > | > | S* > | > " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate " ("plurality should not > be > | > posited without necessity").--William of Ockham. > | > You do not know it? > | > "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are > both > | > true > | > and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton > | > You do not know it? > | > What this means is we don't *need* aether for any purpose, therefore > there > | > is no point in presuming its existence. > | > | We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as > | opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe". > > That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since there > is no aether to breathe there are no gods either. > You do not know it? > You are insane. Not only me. A.G. Kelly also: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf S*
From: Robert Higgins on 25 Jul 2010 14:20 On Jul 23, 7:16 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > ======================================== > > 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. Yes, it was. There used to be these wonderful places called "libraries". > 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. Or, he just can't be bothered to do your work for you. > 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. For reasons that are glaringly obvious for anyone with a minimal high school education. > 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. It is also "apparent" that you have minimal understanding and experience in science. > > PD has often given me important leads and takes the time to completely > and competently explain the issues at hand. Which proves that PD is a nice guy, but it hasn't helped you that much, since you are incapable of learning. > I have complained in this > post that nobody is collaborative on the usenet, Why should it be? Why should other people do YOUR work for you? > 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. No point - there are no "weaknesses" in your proposals, just as it would be silly to call the babbling of an infant a "weakness". > Most of the time, I find > these "weaknesses" once investigated help support rather than detract > from what I am researching. When you are right, you're right, and when you are wrong, you're still right. Interesting logic there.... > Also, it wouldn't be any fun if people > didn't throw stones at my theories, how boring and unproductive that > would be. It wouldn;t be any fun, either, if people didn't throw stones at YOU. > 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. Your Rydberg formula for spectroscopy is quite funny - I have to give you credit. First off - if you send something laughably inept to a real scientist, they will ignore it, and block you on their email. You can not even make a proper chart on Excel. Anyone who claims to be a scientist that (1) keeps the grey background, and (2) keeps the horizontal grid lines, on Excel has never seen a real graph in his life. Take a look at a Figure in any physics or chemistry journal some time. Second - one of the first "tricks" that any scientist learns is the wonderful world of logs. By plotting logs on one axis, ANY relationship looks more linear. Some relationships, like the energy of activation for a reaction, actually DO depend on a logarithmic relationship. For more "success", when in doubt, plot the log as a function of the log - damn near anything will look linear, and you'll get an apparently "better" fit. That is why your "theory" involves log plotting the energy of transitions. BTW, you haven't learned how to even LABEL a chart properly. The axes have neither labels nor units.
From: Androcles on 25 Jul 2010 15:51
"Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message news:4c4c7702$0$17103$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | | "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote | news:M4T2o.195332$wi5.58019(a)hurricane... | > | > "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message | > news:4c4bfbbe$0$19184$65785112(a)news.neostrada.pl... | > | | >> | > | | > | > | You have this: http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf | > | > | | > | > | In the last sentence before supplement Michelson wrote that Stokes | > is | > | > right. | > | > | | > | > | Now you know that the Sun is hot and produces the plasma. The Sun | > and | > | > plasma | > | > | rotate (one revolution per 25 days). | > | > | It is a whirl. The Sun, planets, plasma and everything rotate | > together. | > | > | Stokes predicted it in 1845. Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 | > | > Michelson | > | > | detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s. | > | > | You do not know it? | > | > | S* | > | > " pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate " ("plurality should not | > be | > | > posited without necessity").--William of Ockham. | > | > You do not know it? | > | > "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are | > both | > | > true | > | > and sufficient to explain their appearances. -- Sir Isaac Newton | > | > You do not know it? | > | > What this means is we don't *need* aether for any purpose, therefore | > there | > | > is no point in presuming its existence. | > | | > | We do not need "Aether is the pure upper air that the gods breathe, as | > | opposed to the normal air (???, aer) mortals breathe". | > | > That's right, we are not gods so we don't need any aether. And since there | > is no aether to breathe there are no gods either. | > You do not know it? | > You are insane. | | Not only me. A.G. Kelly also: | http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/ebooks/Kelly%20-%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Behavior%20of%20Light.pdf | S* Ok, you and A.G. Kelly are both insane, but A. G. Kelly isn't here to answer to his crackpottery so he's irrelevant. Clearly he doesn't understand Sagnac or Coriolis and neither do you. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm |