You have studied science? How exactly does the maggots emergence from meat indicate some type of religious bend? That was science at the time. Also, it was science that MMX proves SR in that light measures c in all direction in the ECEF frame. However, by an IOP article I posted in pseudo, MMX is blind to the sagnac correction used in GPS which proves light does not measure c in all directions in ECEF. Therefore, MMX is a bogus mainstream experiment. Now what?
Chinglu, I have recently explained to you how mmx does not 'prove' sr and your own reference agreed with my correction of you. You want to lie and be a fraud go elsewhere. Repeat such a dishonest misrepresentation again and you'll get an infraction. Clearly you cannot discuss relativity without repeatedly lying, I suggest you keep your bs to the fringe section.
A.k.a. "integrity". In any case not only does it happen that published articles get criticised, but there are more or less established procedures for doing so. Some journals (notably, the Physical Review journals) have a "comments" section intended specifically for this purpose: the idea is that if you think there's a problem in an article, you submit a comment on that article, and if it gets published it will be linked to on the original article's abstract page. Physical Review A's procedure for comments is explained here, for instance.
This is a lie. I posted an IOP article that proves MMX fails to see the SAGNAC, hence its conclusions are false. I then posted The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous aether” which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the Earth's motion through the aether became significant in promoting the acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz, Ritz, and Abraham). http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html The entire point of this website is to present evidence for SR. I showed the website claims MMX proves SR but the IOP article refutes that since the MMX conclusions are false. Now, what part of what I said above is false. Therefore, I am the one that taught you that MMX cannot prove SR even though the website above claims it does. Hence, to support your claims, you must prove the website agrees with you. Can you show that? Otherwise, everything is consistent with what I said.
This does not prove that all articles published in mainstream journals are true. Maybe you can prove that. Moderator note : Poster given infraction and a 1 week holiday for continued trolling
Well that settles it: you have no understanding of science or how it is conducted or progresses. Apart from the fact that the "maggots emerging from meat" idea predates anything recognisable as modern science and was discredited by scientists, notice how you've given yourself an excuse to complain no matter what the scientific community does. If the scientific community never changes its mind about anything, you call it a "herd". If it does change its mind about something, you say science is discredited because it was wrong before. Nice.
Well, let's see. What did science believe about light before Einstein? Since you claim SR is absolute fact, that implies science prior was absolutely crackpottery. This refutes your position.
Prove what? The exact opposite of what I actually said? I just showed you that articles are generally not considered true, by the scientific community at large, just because they are published. Learn to read.
You are back to being dishonest, I explained to you why there is no Sagnac effect in MMX and you accepted my explanation and you stopped (for a while) making crackpot claims. You have now reverted to making the same crackpot claim that you made before. You have it vbackwards,a s usual, MMX was designed as a test for "detecting the Earth motion wrt. the aether" . Since it failed, it falsified the atherist idea of "detecting the Earth motion wrt. the aether" . Mixing up two of your errors doesn't result into a correct idea. It results into adding two more errors to your long lists of errors.
You are off task. I said prove all published articles are true. I then pointed to times before relativity. Were those articles true or false? That is your herd science. Prior to relativity the herd science believed the aether was true. Now the herd science claims relativity is true. The herd cannot be right in both cases.
I never claimed all published articles are true. Why should I prove something I don't stand by? Like I said, learn to read. Troll.
Why? Am I using words that are too long and complicated for you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As I've now pointed out on more than one occasion, as have others, this is not what science claims. Publication does not mean proven. Your continued dishonest, repeated posting of debunked material, inability to justify your claims, failure to respond to Rpenner's very detailed responses, all of them earn you a week's holiday. I suggest you use that time wisely, which in your case probably amounts to drinking ether and hitting yourself with a 2 by 4. Everyone else, please ignore chinglu. He has 3 threads over in the fringe forum, one of which is on precisely this topic, so if you want to wail on him with a metal stick do it over there, you'll not be alone. He's failed to make his case over there so he has to move to other threads, that way he can avoid facing up to his short comings.
Any new medication that comes to market will publish their results in prestigious journals, as part of marketing. If it turns out to cause harm which was not part of the article, original publication will not be modified by the disaster it creates. If you spend $100M on a new drug, this greases the machine of publication. One assumes you had the means to make the claims, which later the editors don't have any accountability when it turns to disaster. Say a new idea is published that changes things. The older publication turned out to be wrong, yet these were published anyway, without anyone knowing how wrong these were. How can that be? Often it has to do with towing the company line. If you wanted to publish in a democratic party publication, you can't leave their box and argue truth from a 180 degree POV. You need to use the template provided. Science has it own templates which make the herd all smell the same. Say you and your peers have millions of dollars in resources, someone tries to compete for this money by doing this same thing another way. What is the incentive to lose your resources by providing them credibility? The incentive is to become an obstacle Man made global warming is the money pit of modern science. Nobody who shares that booty will dare make any waves. Anyone who challenges the money pit with truth will not be greeted very well. Professors are under constant pressure to publish, since this brings prestige to themselves and their school. No school wants an outsider, who is undermined by the herd protecting resources, unless he is tenured. They prefer he follow cattle trail which maximizes ones ability to fit in and publish, without upsetting the cart. Each will not invade the others cart in trade for their own protection.
Drug company development cycles and methods are a bit different from academic research into say physics. You seem to have a flawed understanding of what publication means. Publication is not about saying "This is right" or "This is proven" but "This is an interesting set of results which are not known to be inconsistent with current data and which are of potential interest to others in the field". Science knows it isn't perfect, that is why it has the peer review and self correcting mechanisms. When Newton developed his gravity model it explained all the observations of the day in a way no other model could. It used new mathematical methods and tools, developed by Newton, which others could use in other domains of science. Publishing it was undoubtedly a good thing. Sure, 250 years later we discover it isn't perfect but its utility is undeniable. If the criteria for a model to be published were "This is without any possibility of ever being altered, absolutely definitely the way the universe works" then nothing would ever be published. Science is a self correcting iterative process. Sometimes the corrections are small, other times they involve razing a paradigm to the ground. Speaking as someone within the research community, knowing plenty of academics and researchers I can categorically say your carte blanche lumping together of all professors like that is false.
If a scientific theory was "wrong" then it would not account for observations in its domain of applicability. Newtonian gravity isn't "wrong" because it doesn't account for relativistic effects. It's just that it doesn't model gravity at that level of accuracy. Instead, it turns out that previous theories were approximations to better, more precise descriptions of certain phenomena. However, these superseded theories still hold in certain domains - for example, Newtonian gravity works perfectly for making calculations in preparation for launching spacecraft. I wouldn't describe such a model as "wrong", considering its incredible usefulness. The issue is that cranks don't understand that the purpose of science is to accurately model phenomena that we can experimentally observe, not to describe in absolute detail every facet of the physical world.
WELL, I will tell you how I developed this theory. Initially i was trying to develop a "mathematical theory for success". The basic questions which i asked are: "Why only few people are successful?" "Why all the people are not successful, though everybody works hard(trying their best) for success?" In the process of finding answer to these questions, I developed "my theory". After developing this theory, i thought this theory can be generalized for any action. Then i developed a mathematical proof for it. After that I submitted my paper to PR-A as advised by the Professor. May be. You are right. I submitted my paper to PR-A but it was transferred to PR-E. I am quoting the Editor's reply which is a signed letter received from the office of PR-E.
