[alancalverd]

Peer review certainly has its flaws, but science isn't about peer review. Here's a summary of definitions

Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of supporting observations

Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of contradictory observations

Scientific knowledge: the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been contradicted by observation

This places a fair amount of astronomy and cosmology, where we have plenty of observations and hypotheses, but very few tests of predictive hypotheses, in what Eddington called the "stamp collecting" phase of science. Nothing wrong with it, but it distinguishes pre-Darwinian ornithology, for instance, from physics.

[Paradigmer]

Speaking of which, do you know of any cases where an older theory was replaced by a newer theory, one that then became accepted by the scientific world at large for nearly a century, but then later it was discovered that the older theory was in fact the correct one? I'm not aware of any such cases. If I'm wrong on that, please do correct me.

In that kind of timeline, there was at least one that is prominent enough.

The heliocentrism by Aristarchus of Samos was rejected in favor of the incorrect geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy for more than a millennium. 

It was later revived by the Copernican revolution 1,200 year later.

It most certainly would be beyond bizarre to think that the major scientific organizations of the world with their instruments and mathematical expertise came to conclude that relativity was correct if the older, non-relativistic aether theory was the one actually supported by the measurements.

I know. And the unthinkable audacity that sort of implies "You guys out there are all idiots!" to the accomplished top brains of the top notch authority.

p.s. Will reply your other critical question later.

[Bored chemist]

"Can scientific beliefs be compared to religious dogma?"
Yes.
Let me know when you see the Pope wearing a T shirt that says "Will convert for evidence".

That's the comparison.

[LB7]

Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of supporting observations

Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of contradictory observations

Scientific knowledge: the residue of explanatory and predictive hypotheses that have not been contradicted by observation

The problem is there: "observation". If you're not able to observe because too small or/and too fast and not enough intelligent to imagine you're blocked in front of a wall.

[Bored chemist]

The problem is there: "observation".

In what  way is that a problem?

BTW, before answering that, please consider that you are only able to make comments because you observe what's on this web page.

[LB7]

In what  way is that a problem?

Because, you are a slave of the observations. And not all things can be observed because too fast and/or too small. You need something more powerful than observations. People observe and build, it is not idiot but it is copy/paste nothing else.

[Bored chemist]

And not all things can be observed

What's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?

(I freely admit; science doesn't generally deal with things which don't exist)

[LB7]

What's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?

I mean :

And not all things can be observed with the actual technology because too fast and/or too small. Things that can be observed by a superior technology but not by the actual human technology. The worst case: you need to observe to understand something to build the technology that will allow to observe the thing you want to observe.

[Bored chemist]

What's the difference between something that can't be observed, and something that doesn't exist?

[Bored chemist]

And not all things can be observed with the actual technology because too fast and/or too small.

Do you mean that bacteria didn't exist until someone invented the microscope?

[mad aetherist]

Quote from: Paradigmer on 20/10/2018 11:21:59Einstein did not endorse the Einsteinian twin paradox time dilation proposed with SR, instead he provided  a relativistic solution of gravitational time dilation to the twin paradox problem with the equivalence principle of gravitational potential, which involves active transformation by centripetal acceleration of geodesic motion for causing the shorter proper time to the traveling twin in the acceleration that apparently was traversing at near light speed velocity, and therefore illustrated the said paradox in the example does not exist.

No, not quite. He introduced one more postulate, a postulate so silly that it makes his other postulates look like science. He said that the inertially equivalent time dilation affected the clock even after the acceleration had finished. How silly is that?

That postulate doesn't make sense. Where was this from?

I karnt remember. It might be found in a listing of Einstein's wordages. It is the only way to try to overcome the twins paradox (apart from philosophical arguments). Clearly average acceleration doesnt work, so Einstein nominated that it is not the average accel, ie that a clock's future ticking was affected by its history. If u ever find the wordage then tell me.

[mad aetherist]

Since the transition to modern physics, the original scientific method of Francis Bacon, has been compromised.

Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?

Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.

[Kryptid]

Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.

Oh, so not any step in the actual scientific method at all then.

I must admit, the Michelson-Morley experiment is not something I have looked into often. Can you supply me with a link to the original studies and address the criticisms that have been filed against it (such as those non-null results you speak of being within the range of statistical error)? Also, why have much more sensitive experiments (such as this one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf) not reproduced the non-null MMX results you speak of?

[mad aetherist]

Its the step where a non-null MMX is called null -- it is the step where when pointed out to be non-null it is still called null -- it is the step where when with a 100 year history of being called non-null it is nonetheless in 2018 called null.

Oh, so not any step in the actual scientific method at all then. I must admit, the Michelson-Morley experiment is not something I have looked into often. Can you supply me with a link to the original studies and address the criticisms that have been filed against it (such as those non-null results you speak of being within the range of statistical error)? Also, why have much more sensitive experiments (such as this one: http://www.exphy.uni-duesseldorf.de/Publikationen/2009/Eisele%20et%20al%20Laboratory%20Test%20of%20the%20Isotropy%20of%20Light%20Propagation%20at%20the%2010-17%20Level%202009.pdf) not reproduced the non-null MMX results you speak of?

I had a look at that link -- Eisele et al used a vacuum chamber -- Cahill has explained that an MMX needs gas (vacuum gives zero fringeshift)(Demjanov 1970 likewise). What Eisele (Laboratory test of isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level) has shown is that the Lorentz gamma equation for LC is accurate to the 17th decimal. Eisele did his X in 2009, therefore he had no excuse for not being familiar with Cahill (2002), but Demjanov didnt publish in English till 2010 i think.

I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's.  He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX. Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.

I think there are only 2 Einsteinian criticisms.
Roberts's (2006?) hitjob on Miller's MMX says that the error bars would have to be drawn off the page (a lie).
Shankland's 1955 hitjon says the fringeshifts were caused by temperature (a lie).

Other criticisms are of a basically friendly kind (by aetherists). But if there are other Einsteinian criticisms then i would like to know (not including any vacuum junkies).

The scientific method should not include lieing & fudging & ignorance, but thems are the key factor for Einsteinism.

[Kryptid]

I had a look at that link -- Eisele et al used a vacuum chamber -- Cahill has explained that an MMX needs gas (vacuum gives zero fringeshift)(Demjanov 1970 likewise). What Eisele (Laboratory test of isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level) has shown is that the Lorentz gamma equation for LC is accurate to the 17th decimal. Eisele did his X in 2009, therefore he had no excuse for not being familiar with Cahill (2002), but Demjanov didnt publish in English till 2010 i think.

The experiment described in the link did not use fringe shift to search for Lorentz invariance violations. It used lasers in optical cavities to do the measurement instead, checking for specific changes in frequency between the two lasers over time.

I have at home downloaded all of the original papers & lots of modern stuff. I reckon its best to start by googling Reg Cahill's stuff, about 40 papers, most re old MMX's or modern MMX's.  He lists old papers. He has also done an optical fibre MMX & a co-axial cable quasi-MMX, & a zener-diode faux-MMX. Praps the best is Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) 1st order MMX done 22 June 1970 at Obninsk.

How about we start with the prime example: the original 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Do you have that one on hand?

Roberts's (2006?) hitjob on Miller's MMX says that the error bars would have to be drawn off the page (a lie).
Shankland's 1955 hitjon says the fringeshifts were caused by temperature (a lie).

Sources?

The scientific method should not include lieing & fudging & ignorance, but thems are the key factor for Einsteinism.

It doesn't and you have yet to show me a solid source that supports that claim.

[Paradigmer]

I karnt remember. It might be found in a listing of Einstein's wordages. It is the only way to try to overcome the twins paradox (apart from philosophical arguments). Clearly average acceleration doesnt work, so Einstein nominated that it is not the average accel, ie that a clock's future ticking was affected by its history. If u ever find the wordage then tell me.

I could not quite find it either.

If it is concerning the twin paradox, the closest I could find was the on the relavistic inertial frame of reference, which was proposed with velocity time dilation. This is the fallacious Einsteinian SR that proposed the bogus gain of time by the satellite that orbits Earth in its inertial frame of reference. And it was conclusively falsified by the Hafele-Keating Experiment with the result of faster moving clocks that had flown westward.

After thought, if Einstein ever said something like that, he could be referring to the inertial time dilation experienced by the clock that was stationary mounted on Earth. It is a matter of fact that the clock in its inertial frame of reference, is rotating and revolving with the Earth around the Sun, it is actually moving at the velocity of ~30 km/s in the Solar System reference frame, ~232 km/s in the Milky Way reference frame, and ~552 km/s in the CMB reference frame. And the Hafele-Keating Experiment actually asserted this predication of inertial time dilation with the faster moving clocks that flown westward with slower relativistic velocity.

Despite Einstein used the Minkowski space time for his relativistic solution, he always maintained that it was the clock that was slowed in the time dilation effect. The Einsteinians were putting words into his mouth regardless of his clarifications.

Miller Michelson Lorentz Poincare Sagnac Ives & Co all died believing in aether & disbelieving in SR & GR. So did Einstein.

Despite Poincare did advocated luminiferous aether, he later postulated the FitzGerald–Lorentz transformation that thus eliminated the existence of aether with pure mathematics. Is this not a hatch job of clever mathematical trick?

[Paradigmer]

Have a look at an analysis for a hallmark scientific experiment that involved relativity, and let me know if you still think the peer review process is not compromised:
The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space

Firstly, I don't see what that has to do with peer review.

For the time being, despite the obvious, I'll let it pass that you have not yet seen what that has to do with peer review. We shall see about that later.

Secondly, there wouldn't be any time dilation for objects in an expanding space because they aren't actually moving.

Nice try. In the cosmic inflation experiment, it is a matter of fact that time dilation was invoked to account for the proper time of the receding distant galaxies. And these were purportedly mentioned they were supported with the empirically observed positive second derivatives, and their associated cosmological red shifts.

You sure do like the "turning in his grave" line.

Besides the “turning in his grave" line, here is another seriously funny pun:

ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.

It made me an ass by trying to tell the asses in denial on how they were obfuscated by their fallacious assumptions. And I hate being made an ass for the deliverance of the asses, which eventually would made me as the only odd ass left.

Okay, so which particular step in the scientific method is the wrong one? The observations? The experiments? The hypothesizing? What?

This is an off-the-cuff respond to your questions, in a nutshell:
- The empirical observations suffer all sorts of subliminal cognitive paradoxes.
- The hypotheses suffer all sorts of foundational crises with their fallaciously assumed posits.
- The conclusions of the experiments thus suffer all sorts of reifications with its artificial cognitive paradoxes, and were validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs, which entailed all sorts of physical paradox.

For fuller insights, I would suggest a careful reading on “Critiques of the scientific method”. And please take your time.

[myuncle]

I am late to this interesting thread. But I have to agree about some negative similarities between religious dogma and theoretical science. The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating. If you are confident of yourself, why do you need to create a separate section for new theories? No offence to this forum of course, I am just talking in general. There is not a single science forum on the web which allows non-maintream and mainstream science in the same section (if there is one, tell me please!). And if there is no debate, it's not a discussion anymore, it's not a forum anymore, it becomes just "The world according to the moderators". The reason why physicists are so fearful of new theories, is because they are afraid of being criticised from the scientific community. Reputation and money has become the new God. The Bible said so (mainstream science), and you can't argue with that. This is not something new, maybe is getting worse now, but I think this ganging up mafia attitude started in the 18th century, they needed to show off how competent they were to their colleagues, and the more useless math they wrote, the more competent they became. In philosophy it was the same window dressing, not with math, but with new words and long boring books, to express something very simple.

[Bored chemist]

The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating.

No.

[Colin2B]

There are a lot of good points in this thread, but also a lot of misunderstandings. I’m not sure whether this is an anti science thread or an anti bad-science thread. I fully agree that bad science is something we should all try to eliminate and guard against. Feynman is an oft quoted leading light in this area, but he’s not alone. Examples of lack of critical thinking exists in all areas, not just science and I’m glad to see that schools are now teaching critical thinking skills.

The fact that there is the need to separate the "mainstream science" from "new theories", it shows just how fearful science is of debating. If you are confident of yourself, why do you need to create a separate section for new theories? No offence to this forum of course, I am just talking in general.

I can only speak from the specific.
We are primarily an educational site to answer general questions posed by listeners to the podcasts, and readers of the articles. Listeners who pose these questions are usually looking for the current understanding on the topic. We often found that these questions were interrupted by people with their own theory or hobby horse. For example, a question about the moon’s orbit would attract a post by someone saying the answer was wrong because the world is flat not round; or a question on gravity would have the claim that gravity is due to air pressure and buoyancy; or someone else tries to interject aether or wormholes as the answer to most questions (these are real examples). In each case the original question gets lost because the thread gets diverted. So, it is necessary to draw a line about what can be discussed in the main section, but where do you draw that line? Some fora draw a hard line and will not allow any new theory discussion; I can understand that because they want to have an in depth discussion on quite detailed topics in specific areas. We take a more liberal view and will allow discussion in the appropriate area, but in drawing the line we are saying that many famous scientists around today would find themselves in the new/speculative section - and most wouldn’t mind.

In philosophy it was the same window dressing, not with math, but with new words ......, to express something very simple.

I totally agree, I’m a great believer in plain english.

- The empirical observations suffer all sorts of subliminal cognitive paradoxes.
- The hypotheses suffer all sorts of foundational crises with their fallaciously assumed posits.
- The conclusions of the experiments thus suffer all sorts of reifications with its artificial cognitive paradoxes, and were validated by self-referencing with all sorts of circular definition in the subjective realities of their fallaciously postulated hypothetical constructs, which entailed all sorts of physical paradox.

However, take care not to knock the maths. Without it Newton’s laws become unusable.
If you want to know how much force is needed to accelerate a car to 60mph in 1min and how far it will have traveled, you have to use maths.

Interestingly, skimming through this thread I have just spotted an odd post I need to go look at.