well, it's a FACT that scientists that present certain anomalous evidence is ridiculed almost out of their careers.
yes, the evidence HAS NOT been invalidated.
read "anatomy of an anomoly" by susan clark for an eyefull.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
yes, the evidence HAS NOT been invalidated.
read "anatomy of an anomoly" by susan clark for an eyefull.
Being an authority in a field doesn't garauntee being correct - again I raise Carey and the expanding earth hypothesis. Carey was an important geologist who did some immensely important work, but that doesn't make his expanding earth hypothesis any more correct.
Sure, there are always exceptions. Even the incidents with peer review of late.
No authority is infallible, but we all, at some time or other, quote someone of authority to support a particular stance.
We all do it.
I would also add, that the greatest misnomer with any appeal to authority, is the taking of quotes out of context, as has been the case here on occasions.
Agreed.
no scientist should have to put up with what susan clark did.
hmm . . . i wonder, you think she will ever report any other anomalous evidence?
get the picture?
The picture I get is that you're throwing a lot of crap at the wall and none of it is sticking. You throw one piece of crap, it doesn't stick and you immediately jump to the next. You didn't correct your inaccurate bio of Einstein or provide a source for your claimed Voyager anomaly. No doubt, you won't provide any support for this claim of yours either and will just ignore the follow-up and jump to the next piece of crap.
go play in the traffic.
You do realize you just validated my criticism, right?
What are you referring to?
Why not tell us the story or give us a link?
No, I doubt readers do. It's a very common name. What did she claim and who contradicted her, and why?
ON the one hand... 1970s.
On the other hand, what's your point? People get shafted occasionally even though they're right? You can think the Andrew Wakefields of the world for that. Or do you think he's also being unfairly persecuted?
Cheers - I was going to go hunting for that myself. You beat me to it.
So, Trippy, did you read the .pdf at the Link in its entirety?
it's solid proof that "peer review" IS NOT self correcting.
you know, i have a real problem with this sort of thing.
add to that the fact science is becoming politicized with the attending lobbyists and big bucks and you wind up with something almost sinister.
science is supposed to be the last word in regards to the truth.
This is in response to a phase diagram for sub particle matter. To quote myself:
The impact of gravitational pressure is the reduction of entropy. I will call this impact of gravity, entropy containment. The tight/dense situations limit the phase variety that is possible. You would not be able to run modern collider experiments within a dense reference, induced by gravity, like in the core of the earth, since there is no elbow room to accelerate anything. Also equipment material phases could not exist so there is no apparatus. The extreme pressure is limiting global entropy, taking many phases off the table from production to retention.
Water for example, at the pressure and temperatures of the earth's core, becomes metallic. This alloys with the iron and nickel. One will not find liquid or gas phase water in the core because the entropy confinement does not allow these phases.
What we form on the surface of the earth is based on higher entropy states that may not be possible at extreme gravitational pressures. The question becomes if we limit the entropy of the current substructure particles; entropy confinement, what now becomes the foundation of matter? New phases should be welcome since ti keeps the investigation of matter going for centuries.
The reason this obvious inference was not obvious is because it uses an aspect of classical gravity not part of GR. GR is accurate for what it does, but it does not deal with pressure, phases and entropy confinement. This is overlooked in modern theory.
I suspect that he is actually confusing Suzanne Clark with Susan Clark, a columnist in the UK who promotes alternative medicine.
http://badscience.net/index.php?s=susan+clark
http://badscience.net/index.php?s=susan+clark
The fact that science has progressed as far as it has is solid proof it is self correcting. While there may be a handful of examples where it fails, they are very rare.
And you're the one who prefers religion - the ultimate dogma!
And you continue to validate my criticism by not providing support for anything you are saying. The pile of crap on the floor that didn't stick to the wall just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
What?! No it wasn't. It was a generic phase diagram you found on the web, for a generic, normal molecular substance. You found it here:
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/cronk/CHEM101pub/lectures.cfm?L=28
link said:
Why are you lying about this? Is it just to try to cover-up your nonsense? Or is it trolling? Do yourself a favor and start learning instead of just making crap up as you go.
The rest of the post reads like a random technobabble generator. It is gibberish. But the last bit is telling:
So you don't like what modern theory is saying, so you're trying to make up your own. Got it.
Please supply the evidence that Susan Clark is an example that peer review does not work.