| General > General Technical Chat |
| "Veritasium" (YT) - "The Big Misconception About Electricity" ? |
| << < (263/396) > >> |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:24:14 pm ---[...] Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory. However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing. --- End quote --- By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it? |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 24, 2022, 08:48:28 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 08:24:14 pm ---[...]Who was it here that mentioned that science is a consensus. That mightbeso, but if it is then that is a criticism of science. Koz it should only take one fact, one scientist, to sink a flawed theory. However, Einsteinists are good at stopping that one scientist from publishing. --- End quote --- By example: I have a huge quantity of data that shows a diurnal variation in background radiation counts all recorded at an almost exact location, measured with maybe 100 different detectors over the course of several years. I personally attributed it to thermal drift in the detection circuit. Hypothetically, I could publish it and claim it shows an aetherwind that is affecting the propagation of electrons or whatever in the detector head. To claim that of the data would invalidate many theories... surely you agree that peer review is a good thing in preventing me from doing that, even if I really believed it? --- End quote --- I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper. Re your data, this is obviously linked to the Shnoll Effects. Your data supports the aether, i mean the aetherwind, i mean the turbulence of the aetherwind (as explained by Reg Cahill). But u dont know what i am talking about. Koz u have never heard of Cahill's explanation of the Shnoll Effect. Koz Cahill has never been allowed to publish in the journals that u read. So, all of your data is useless. Pity. The Einsteinian Mafia gatekeepers win again. |
| penfold:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:00:32 pm ---[...] I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper. --- End quote --- Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure. I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent. |
| aetherist:
--- Quote from: penfold on February 24, 2022, 09:29:08 pm --- --- Quote from: aetherist on February 24, 2022, 09:00:32 pm ---[...]I dont understand. U are actually making my point. Of course i like peer review. It is Einsteinists who stop peer review, & they do this by stopping publication of the critical paper. --- End quote --- Any/Most/(Ones i glanced at) papers and reports you've presented have not been from peer reviewed journals and have frequently cited other non-peer reviewed sources as their primary evidence? To me that shows an undue amount of trust in non-peer-reviewed sources. Peer review serves to prevent poorly designed experiments and impropper/irrational conclusions from reaching publication... and yes, peer review is itself peer reviewed and the rationality of conclusions is an absolute and non-subjective measure. I did actually know of the Shnoll effect, it was definitely not a significant contribution to my data and nor was it wasnt aetherwind dependent. --- End quote --- None of Einstein's papers have been in a peer reviewed journal. Einstein almost never cited other sources (at least not in his early days). So, what do u think that your data showed? Oh, ok, i just then saw that u reckoned that it was thermal. Yes, temp is the usual source of a daily effect. But as u will be aware an aetherwind signal has a sidereal day signal, whilst temp has a solar day signal, the difference being say 4 minutes per day. Your data would/should i think reveal that. |
| TimFox:
Einstein's four seminal papers from 1905 in Annalen der Physik were peer-reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief Max Planck and the Co-Editor Wilhelm Wien, both scientists of some reknown who later won Nobel Prizes. It is true that Einstein later was highly critical of the process of peer review, when his draft paper was shown to other specialists before publication. Modern peer review became popular in the mid 20th century. Wikipedia's article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review discusses the process, history, and controversies about scholarly peer review. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |