Re: Chris! Oh Chris! yoohoo..over here. You missed this one Re: Wave

On Mar 8, 6:09 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8SSsl.13180$qa.11070@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ejRsl.13091$v8.8092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Burkhard wrote:
On 8 Mar, 14:41, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Please note:
1) NOT from a creationist site
2)It has been through peer review
3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
4) It is recent work

So you are OUT of handwaves

Read it and weep

Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at
Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr.
Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr.
John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work
advocating their belief that light speed was much higher - as
much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the
"Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none
of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a
predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they
are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

Note the expression: "in the early stages  of the "Big Bang" -
i.e. as Chris (and i on another thread where you posted this)
pointed out, in the  5.39 x 10 E-44 seconds after the big bang
started. This means there are simply no consequences for the age
of the universe, and no such claim is made in ANY paper  by
Magueijo, Moffat or Petit that I could find

It's important to recognize the resistance that the current
hierarchy of science has to the possibility that light speed may
not be constant. Dr. Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a
year between submission of his initial work on varying light
speed and publication.

Which for top journals which are swamped with submissions and rely
on unpaid reviewers is not unsusual.

Setterfield, Dr. Tifft,
Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to
peer review which borders on ridicule.

Barrow's group was asked to include data that had become available
between their work and publication. A perfectly normal and
sensible procedure, nothing ridiculous and the work was published.

[]
After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers
devised extensive experiments in attempts to prove him wrong.
Among them two Scottish astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William
Napier from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh observed
approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found to their
surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.

They also had difficulty publishing their data.

I.e.; They did publish the data

It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed
by Olaf Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to
disprove the Aristotelian belief that light speed was infinite.
Despite overwhelming and repeatable evidence, over 50 years
passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time accepted
evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
unimpeachable.

So what? new theories are tested rigorously. in another thread on
peer review, you complained that science made new findings
prematurely available and was risking life for profits. Which one
is it? Make up your mind.

Please tell me you did not go there.

These are two completly different issues and clearly shows how low
some of you will go to disceredit any post that cast a shadow of
doubt on evolution and main stream science.

Hey chum, YOU were the one who started both threads, and you were
shown to be a fool on both.  In one case, you said peer-review had
not stopped a scientific fraus (it was a commercial fraud and had
nothing to do with evolutionary science published in peer-reviewed
journals).  In the other case, you read an article in WingNutDaily
and so massively misunderstood the science of cosmology that you
have been ducking and diving ever since. You want a medal for that?

No, but distinctions need to be made. And differences need to be
pointed out. In the one thread peer review failed in the early
stages. In this thread there was a clear prejudice within the peer
review process. Which is suppose to be an objective process.

So in the first case we have an early failure and in the second case
we have dishonest objectiveness. Both within the peer review process.

I doubt you will see the distinction; Chum. Because you worship
science as though it were a god. But science is man made and will
have faults just like man has faults. You still want your medal
though? Here ya go [toss].

And as far as "ducking" the other thread, well I made my opinion
clear, and I read yours. What else do you want? We obviously
disagree so adding dozens more of the same opinion is redundant.

In this paticular thread however, my original premise above still
stands:

"These are two completly different issues and clearly shows how low
some of you will go to disceredit any post that cast a shadow of
doubt on evolution and main stream science."

And the data that everyone is hammering at [and that has been peer
reviewed BTW] clearly casts that shadow.

Now, does the peer review process work or not?

If it does, then the data is valid.

If it does not then i am correct in this thread and the other one
that peer review can be wrong.

First of all, peer review does not guarantee that whatever is
published is valid data.  You have started with a mistaken premise.
Secondly, what was published was not data, but speculative theories.
Data are observations. Peer review is a method that science uses to
subject a submission to critical review, looking for weaknesses and
errors.  Many articles do not get published until the authors have
made revisions and corrections requested by the reviewer.  Once an
article gets published, its contents are available to all who might
agree with it or take issue with the theory, data, or interpretation.

It works well enough that no one has found a better method for
deciding what gets published and what does not.  It isn't perfect,
but it's all we have. If you have a better idea (which I doubt
totally) why don't you say what it is?  And once something is
published, it does not become instant Holy Writ, and it could still
end up on the trash heap.  Only time and further testing can decide.

In the case of the herbicide, peer-review was not the issue, the fact
seems to be that the chemical was allowed to be marketed before a
proper review was done.  (Not a peer review as in journal
publications, but a review by a regulating authority for potentially
dangerous substances).

In the second case, peer review worked, because the papers did get
published.  The problem here is not peer review, but your complete
personal inability to actually understand the science in the articles.

The rest is innuendo and fairy tales made up by WingNutDaily, which
you seem to believe is Trvth.  And there is your problem, well one of
them anyways.

You failed to recognize that /after/ the peer review and after the paper was
published a group of scientists did exactly what you said. They disagreed
with the findings and set out to prove the theory wrong.

They could not.

Quite the contrary.

They discovered the same evidence. And that evidence is the universe is
slowing down.

Which equals what?

It equals doubt that evolution is a valid theory because you may not have
had enough time for 1) the right conditions on the earth to develop for
spontaneous life to begin and 2) enough time for slow mutations from a
single cell life form to evolve into everything we see today.

Despite the edcuation some of you clain to have you cannot see this simple
fact.


IOW he adman didn't read page 3 of albrecht's paper where he
specifically says the speed of light variation applies only to the
intial duration of inflation. the speed of light, according to
albrecht, today is constant.

DAMN!! another creationist who can't read

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Publishing scientific information
    ... selective act by an establishment peer review process. ... a highly fitness mutualised species like our own. ... This also applies to the history of science. ... cultural evolution unlike organic evolution, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Proposed Bill to fight creationism
    ... advanced high school classes, one might wish to present an alternative ... but that they aren't science at all. ... views which pass the critical test of the peer review process. ... In an article for Twentieth Century Physics, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Publishing scientific information
    ... science had to wait for another generation. ... and non democratic peer review process? ... Neo Darwinists act as if Karl Popper ... retard the evolution of the sciences. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: More Scientific Blunders
    ... What Blondlot had was a basic spectroscope with a prism (not ... corrupt media giving science a black eye today. ... believe Blondlot had any peer review since he worked over a ... everything and even then to question the evidence until it has ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More Scientific Blunders
    ... What Blondlot had was a basic spectroscope with a prism (not ... corrupt media giving science a black eye today. ... believe Blondlot had any peer review since he worked over a ... everything and even then to question the evidence until it has ...
    (talk.origins)