• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who's affraind of Peer Review?

Just don't give up on science... it was not the dedicated-to-the-truth "real" scientist that brought this on. Real scientists, believe it or not, love to be proven wrong and will often give researchers suggested methods to do just that.

Yes, I give up on 'science' , because it is really a control tool. What you wrote here is a fairy tale.It is very simply not true.
 
Scientists probably do but researchers, bloggers, and posters seem not to these days.

Don't be too surprised if it is the other way around.
 
Yes, I give up on 'science' , because it is really a control tool. What you wrote here is a fairy tale.It is very simply not true.
Not entirely, most real theories include an invalidation criteria.
I think Eddington was following Einstein's invalidation criteria, when he performed his solar eclipse
photographs.
Had stars behind the sun not been visible, Einstein would have been wrong.
 
Not entirely, most real theories include an invalidation criteria.
I think Eddington was following Einstein's invalidation criteria, when he performed his solar eclipse
photographs.
Had stars behind the sun not been visible, Einstein would have been wrong.

I answered just in annother thread that Einstein WAS wrong!
Eddington 'massaged' the data a lot!

It really is the same in the whole of 'science'.
 
Last edited:
I answered just in annother thread that Einstein WAS wrong!
Eddington 'massaged' the data a lot!
A photograph showing a star known to be behind the sun, would be difficult to "massage" into place.
 
A photograph showing a star known to be behind the sun, would be difficult to "massage" into place.

I am talking about the measurments.

They are all lies. Eddington was, let's say, a bit biased in favour of relativity-bollocks.
 
And, if there is speed measured above the 'speed of ligh limit ( "c") , it is also proven that relativity is incorrect.
 
I am talking about the measurments.

They are all lies. Eddington was, let's say, a bit biased in favour of relativity-bollocks.
The difference is that Newton did not have the concept of high mass objects bending light.
Any change from a straight line would show some deviation.
 
The difference is that Newton did not have the concept of high mass objects bending light.
Any change from a straight line would show some deviation.

What are you trying to say here.
 
What are you trying to say here.
Einstein's theory predicted that heavy objects would bend light,
Newtonian Physics would be that light can only go in a straight line.
Einstein's invalidation criteria, was that if he was wrong, the stars behind the sun would not be visible,
Since the stars were not only visible, but photographed, it validated a portion of Einstein's theory.
The calculations of how much bending of the light occurred, may be off, but not that the light was bent.
 
Einstein's theory predicted that heavy objects would bend light,
Newtonian Physics would be that light can only go in a straight line.
Einstein's invalidation criteria, was that if he was wrong, the stars behind the sun would not be visible,
Since the stars were not only visible, but photographed, it validated a portion of Einstein's theory.
The calculations of how much bending of the light occurred, may be off, but not that the light was bent.

yes, well, light is also bent by simple optical lenses. It seems the whole thing can be explained by the optical theories.
It is a logical flaw seeing made most by 'scientists"
The prediction is "If A then B happens" Then in 'reality B happens and then that should 'prove" A to be real.
no no no. Doesn't work that way.It is illogical.

Anyway,
For sure no space bended at all That whole notion is very ridiculous.
 
yes, well, light is also bent by simple optical lenses. It seems the whole thing can be explained by the optical theories.
It is a logical flaw seeing made most by 'scientists"
The prediction is "If A then B happens" Then in 'reality B happens and then that should 'prove" A to be real.
no no no. Doesn't work that way.It is illogical.

Anyway,
For sure no space bended at all That whole notion is very ridiculous.
Light in lenses is bent through a change in the refraction index, something well know in Newton's time.
Within the vacuum of space no such bending should occur within Newton's physics.
"The rectilinear propagation of light" (dug that one out of my memory. I think it was on my first optics exam several decades ago.)
 
yes, well, light is also bent by simple optical lenses. It seems the whole thing can be explained by the optical theories.
It is a logical flaw seeing made most by 'scientists"
The prediction is "If A then B happens" Then in 'reality B happens and then that should 'prove" A to be real.
no no no. Doesn't work that way.It is illogical.

Anyway,
For sure no space bended at all That whole notion is very ridiculous.

To use science (optics) to refute science (general relativity) is the height of keyboard abuse... but you are due congratulations anyway as you are the "only" user who is now in my ignore list. Sheesh.
 
Light in lenses is bent through a change in the refraction index, something well know in Newton's time.
Within the vacuum of space no such bending should occur within Newton's physics.
"The rectilinear propagation of light" (dug that one out of my memory. I think it was on my first optics exam several decades ago.)

Problem here is that there is no vacuum in space.
 
To use science (optics) to refute science (general relativity) is the height of keyboard abuse... but you are due congratulations anyway as you are the "only" user who is now in my ignore list. Sheesh.

difficult eh?!

Buy then.
 
Problem here is that there is no vacuum in space.
That sucks!, actually the index mismatch of the not pure vacuum of space is orders of magnitude lower than the amount of observed
light bending from the suns effects.
 
Stick with accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journals which put up a pay wall to access the material contained within. As in most things, you get what you pay for.
 
Back
Top Bottom