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: Szczepan Bia�ek on 29 Jul 2010 14:04 <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote news:vko8i7-2n3.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote: >> >> >> It stops after 1 minute 33s. So I do not know what is the conclussion. >> Could >> you explain? > > 1. That gravity works and if you are measuring small stuff while > vertically > rotating you need to build things that are really stiff. Michelson experience it in 1881. > > 2. That thermal expansion and contraction works and if you are measuring > small > stuff you need to tightly control the temperature. As the above. > 3. That there is no ether. Yes. No Lorentz solid ether. > > 4. That you are an idiot. I am in full agreement with you. So we both are? S*
From: jimp on 29 Jul 2010 14:27 In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote: > > For everybody aether means Lorentz aether (solid body). > No such and I do not want it. > > But in the space is the rare plasma. Plasma behaves like the Stokes jelly > like mrdium. > S* Babbling nonsense word salad. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 29 Jul 2010 14:30 "Szczepan Bia?ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote: > > <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote news:vko8i7-2n3.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics.electromag Szczepan Bialek <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote: >> 4. That you are an idiot. > > I am in full agreement with you. Good to see you realize that. Now turn off the school computer and go outside and play with the rest of your class for retarded 12 year old's. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Puppet_Sock on 29 Jul 2010 16:11 On Jul 15, 4:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > Moderation is not censorship, though anyone on the wrong end of the > stick could equivocate. I propose an experiment. Premise: A comment in a news group as to the methods and practices of moderation ought to be acceptable. A moderation node ought to be about the topic of moderation. That is, the content of something that is added by a nameless "moderator" without going through the standard process of making a news group posting, ought only to include things that refer to moderation, the process of moderation, etc. It ought not to be a way to short circuit the normal posting process. It ought not to be a way of inserting claims about physics, even correct claims. s.p.research shouldn't be the "house journal" of the people who are the moderators. And for the most part, moderation ought to be distinct from posting. For example, a moderator ought not to moderate his/her own posts. s.p.research ought not to be the blog of the group of people who act as the moderators. Experiment: Find a recent posting in s.p.research where the moderator has inserted physics content, and nothing else, as a moderation note. Reply to this posting, quoting only the moderator note, and complain about the short circuiting of the normal news group posting process, with the request that when moderators want to post that they do so in the usual manner required of any poster. Be nice about it. Don't swear. Don't make a list of past times this has been done. Don't make statements like "this pattern is annoying." Simply state that you think that moderator notes ought to be about moderation, not about physics content. Hypothesis A) s.p.research is a clique. Certain people are allowed in based far less on physics content than on who they are pals with. Any challenge of this is seen as a personal attack, no matter how it is phrased or presented. Prediction based on A) Your post will get erased. You will not be given a reason at all, never mind a good reason. Hypothesis B) s.p.research is in fact a group of hard working professionals only interested in the truth and good physics. Prediction based on B) Your post will get placed in the group. There will be a short, reasonable discussion of your complaint, possibly restricted to one thread so as not to clutter the group. If a consensus appears as to what the readers want, then that will be done. Since this test has already been done several times, always producing results consistent with A), I'm pretty sure I know how I'll bet. Socks
From: franklinhu on 29 Jul 2010 18:02
On Jul 26, 11:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 25, 12:56 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Secondly, you should know that the Rydberg formula is the *result of* > > > a theory. Thus, when you say you've extended the Rydberg formula, you > > > should probably indicate how you've extended the theory that produced > > > the Rydberg formula. As far as I can tell, you've not done that at > > > all. > > > The extension I referred to is the common one used to calculate the > > spectra for hydrogen-like ions. See: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_formula > > > Look under: > > "Rydberg formula for any hydrogen-like element" > > > That isn't my extension. All I am claiming is that the rest of the > > spectra for non-hydrgen-like ions can be described as a simple scaling > > of the Rydberg formula. I did not in anyway "calculate" what the form > > of the formulas should be, I just plotted the data and did a curve > > fitting exercise to show that you could create a Rydberg formula that > > reproduces the He spectra to within a percent of the observed values. > > I've looked at your stuff. Congratulations, you earned a pair of > eyeballs. > It is still not interesting. > > At the very basic level, all you are doing is an empirical fit. There > is no underlying theory. > ANY empirical fit with a sufficient number of free parameters can be > made to fit an arbitrary number of data points. > In this case, you have a relatively low number of data points, because > you've selected only those cases that make the fit look good. That > borders on scientific fraud. It is true that with sufficient "free parameters", you can make any line fit any formula. However, I think you would agree that a formula with only 2 variables N1, N2 and perhaps a constant based on N1, is not a lot of parameters. It is also true, that all I did was an empirical fit, and looking back at the data, there are a number of datapoints within the 300-900 nm range which I did not use. My formula only accounts for about a 1/3 of the observed lines, so it would be critical to see if fits could be found for the other 2/3's. > > If you want to know why the *ratio* of spectral lines is about the > same for He and H, then a simple quantum mechanics text will explain > to you why. What I was trying to show was not anything between He and H, rather, I wanted to show the similarity of the spectral distribution between He I and He II. Specificically that the He I and He II spectra are both based upon the Rydberg forumula. > > The sad part about this is that you think you've discovered something > that somebody else doesn't know how to do, just because they don't do > the empirical fit the way you do. The problem is that the quantum > mechanical method explains WHY the Rydberg formula is the way it is, > and doesn't HAVE to do any empirical fitting to get 1% results. > Well, that is what I find most surprising because what I did could have been done by anyone and should have been done. Neither is there anything sad about looking at the same data that everyone's looked at for 100 years and finding a new pattern. With regards to why the Rydberg formula is the way it is, I have derived the Rydberg formula based upon concept that the reason why the spectra is quantized is because electrons can only move quantum distances away from the nucleus, rather than the electrons occupying orbital states: http://franklinhu.com/HydrogenSpectrum.html > > > > > > Now Eric says that the Rydberg formula only applies to hydrogen or > > hydrogen-like ions, but what I have shown is that it is wrong - just > > look at how closely I have been able to reproduce the spectra for He, > > Li, & Be using nothing but a simple scaling of the Rydberg formula. > > The spectra for the other ions of an atom follow exactly the same > > staircase spectral energy pattern which is very predictable (Have you > > even bothered looking at those graphs????). Eric says that this is > > impossible even in principle, and it would be if you blindly believed > > his principles based upon the orbital model of the atom. But since the > > spectral data can find a fit using only the Rydberg formula, then I'd > > say these "principles" need to come under review since I just did > > something which is "in principle" impossible. > > > But once again getting back to the topic of this post, you and others > > simply won't look at it, you won't even get past the 1st sentence - at > > least look at the graphs I references in my original post. I wouldn't > > mind if you looked at it and then threw stones, you're not even > > looking. This is worse than censorship or moderation where you blanket > > ignore anything which does not match your existing dogma. So really, > > it matters little if Scientific American censors all scientifc > > innovation, no one would want to read about it anyways. No wonder > > science makes so little progress. > > > So once again, I beg of you to actually read what I have proposed. If > > you spent this much time reading to the bottom of this post, it is the > > least you could do: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ab78cb14189ffaee > > > Otherwise, you too are guilty of putting a blind unscientifc dogmatic > > eye on all possible scientific innovations.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |