While it is unlikely that any "amateur" will invalidate GR or BHs or whatever, it is not impossible.
Agreed of course, problem being that they do not like being reminded of that remote chance...a non zero chance certainly, though closer to zero then one!
And don't believe everything you read in reputable mainstream sources, either!
We do all mostly know that science is never 100% correct and is always open for advancement and progress. Always keeping that in mind, I'm certainly more inclined to put my faith in reputable mainstream articles then anti GR claims by the likes of the god, expletive deleted, MR or Fat Freddy.
Claims are one thing. Evidence and argument in support is another.
Adamant claims that the "mainstream" must always be right fall into the same category as the other adamant claims you've mentioned.
I have never claimed that mainstream is always right, but I do claim they are far more right than trolls, cranks and anti science nuts that believe they can rewrite 21st century cosmology from any science forum.
Thread titles like "Proof that Gravitational waves don't exist" or "Einstein was wrong!" or whatever are deliberately provocative and mostly wrong. However, claims must be examined on their merits, not prejudged. Most of the time we find here that such extravagant claims are baseless. Some are harder to dismiss than others. Some might even be correct.
If they were correct, there proponents would be in line for the Nobel.
In actual fact though most are in the same class as Zarkov whom yourself often dismissed as crank.
And so what? If they are known for often being in error, that might make it less likely that (a) they are taken seriously and (b) they are correct this time. But it doesn't automatically mean that everything they post is wrong. You're known for your pro-GR stance. So does that mean that you are always right, or that GR is necessarily right? No. Ideas ultimately stand or fall on their own merits, not on the reputation of the person putting them forward. Plenty of people have been ridiculed at first and later shown to be right. And plenty of established "experts" have been shown to be wrong.
While that is partly true, it's also as I still and will always claim, that if individuals claim they can rewrite 21st century cosmology, they would not be here. Instead we have claims from unqualified in the main lay people, that try and push that bullshit and expect us/you/me to fall for it.
Sorry, I'll live or fall, on the general merits and claims of reputable experiments such as aLIGO, rather than the rantings of those that have an ego to feed, and get their nourishment from public forums. Not Impressed by them one iota.
Yes. You cannot validly conclude that any claim that GR is wrong is false, simply on the basis that the claim is posted on science forum, or posted by an "amateur". Ideas stand or fall on their merits, not by who posted them or where they were published.
Maybe you'll win the lottery tomorrow James.
If you've watched those discussions in my case, you will notice that I start with an open mind and closely question the claims being made. If it becomes apparent that there are flaws in the evidence, the arguments being made, the underlying assumptions, etc. then it is fair to conclude that the case being put is not very convincing. But not before.
In many circumstances I have made those flaws obvious. In just as many circumstances, as you well know, the trolls and cranks concerned do not want to entertain any answer that invalidates their preconception.
Other times, I may not be able to refute scientifically so I logically raise the undeniable concerns that get those trolls rather hot under the collar....claims re public science forums open to all and sundry, and then appropriate peer review if they truly believe they have anything of substance.
We have even had one professional expert already driven away due to the antics of one well known troll.
And in recent times two other reasonably knowledgable posters have decided to call it quits.
So much for welcoming trolls with open arms.
Will you not entertain ideas until they have gone through a complete process of peer review and been rubber stamped by some "authority"? That's a very high bar you're setting there.
I don't believe so. When those claims are claims that GR is wrong, and BH's do not exist, and GP-B and aLIGO are fraudulent, and that we need to question the long held belief that our Sun is not part of a unitary stellar system, then yes, the high bar standard is necessary. Just as you and others tell MR re extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
I am quite happy for Q-reeus, or anybody else, to attempt to make their case here, for starters. If they turn out to be wrong here, there's no need to submit it for peer review and the like.
Agreed, except for the fact that just because no one can or is prepared to question his arrogant claims, does not mean they cannot be questioned by more expert authorities.
Arrogance and misplaced self-confidence is never a good look. However, ideas ultimately stand or fall on their merits, as I keep saying.
The arrogance is initially in the titles. The merits of his ideas were put to bed by Schmelzer and PhysBang.
