Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

No answer.

Nobody will take anything seriously in the scientific world unless it has been peer reviewed. That's the whole basis of science, to question yourself and get others to do the same.
But I guess it's on the internet because of some big conspiracy to hide the truth

 

Richard Smith who was editor of the BMJ for 13 years said this -

''So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.''

 

My

The last statement of mine that you referenced just talked about peer review. Sure people are aware of pay for publish journals/publications and in the medical world it has helped onion solutions become an alternative medicine that people believe will work.

But peer review is also the tests and experiments and repeatability/method of data collection. If these are also not reviewed then the data is rubbish and open to 'alteration' to fit the answer you want to reach.

 

Further to that, considering peer reviewed papers as facts is further made silly by the fact that not only have so many papers been disproven this last 60 yerars but there is a large amount of retractions of papers after publishing.

Hundreds of papers over the years have been misused as proof, only to be either retracted or discredited.

 

Just a quick answer to this, as I confess to just being an interested reader in the last ten years of popular science, Discovery, Nova and so forth. My dad was the scientist in the family and sparked my interest, but he had maths and I don't. That said, let's start by talking of my favourite scientist and the limitations of a 'current' theory, as expressed by my second favourite scientist, quoted in your signature.

Charles Darwin was the greatest ****ing genius to walk this earth, imho. The limitations (acknowledged by himself), on his original thesis, are there for all to see. He had, like with Newton (and Liebniz, to an extent) no idea as to the mechanism of his theory - i.e. genes were then completely unknown. As Feynman said, a scietinfic fact only lasts until it is proved wrong. That is the nature of science, Darwin was wrong on so many things, but his main thrust, as with Newton with gravity, and Einstein with relativity, is right. What's more, they have advanced the sum of human knowledge immeasurably, even though many details are forever subject to review and discovery.

I do have intuitive problems with Einstein's (proven) theories of relative time though (due to limitations of my imagination, I'm sure). If you take the Andromeda Paradox, we can be relative to the 'future' of Andromeda by relative forward motion. Information, as in entanglement (and what you said about quanta) travels instantly. therefore, if there was some method of communicating with the INFORMATION at Androma instantly, could we not tell them (and they us) our future? Could we also not reverse this by travelling away from each other, relatively, and tell each other our pasts? See who did really kill Kennedy, for instance!

Anyway, as you can see, I'm just a thicko full of questions, but just to finish off the longest quick answer in this board's history, the like's of Newton (and Liebniz!), Einstein and Darwin have, to quote Plutarch, proved that the mind is a fire to be lighted, not a vessel to be filled. For that I thank them more than any religious figure in mankind's history.

 

Peer review is a process where a scientist's research is assessed for quality before it is funded or published. One type of peer review is at the proposal stage right at the beginning to see if it's a worthy subject to take forward. The other type is at the end of the research project when the results are prepared for publication.

It depends purely on the reviewers how much of the data collected and presented to them gets checked out ay either stage [the beginning or the end]. There's absolutely no guarantee how robustly anything is checked out before it passes for either research or publishing in fact papers have been submitted with huge errors on purpose in order to test the system and guess what ....

 

Darwin as you probably know was not a product of the education dogmatic system. A gentleman scientist and truly a genius. There are almost no more of those left, Dyson being one of the last, they get shut out these days because if you are not in a University, getting funding is very difficult and we know damn well that if your research is not in equilibrium with whomever provides research funding, University research programs primarily funded by governments, then you are out in the cold. It happens all the time.

Opens up lots of philisophical questions Donga, thing is, I split my relativity philosophy from the applied mathematics of relativity.
Relativity as we know with Einstein's theoretical proof. Einsteins equations especially the most famous one have adanced our mathematics, without Newton though, you cannot work out gravitational force, space time curvature won't do it. You need Newtons equations for that.

Science is indeed dynamic, but every relative frame of science reference(haw haww) is static and considered fact, not best guess as it often should be put forward as, and any contrary ideas to this guess from science "authority" is shut out, when talking theoretical not empirical. It's just so silly and unscientific. Am really tired of consensus on theoretical sciences. Groups of people doing anything to defend their theory and all peer reviewing and citing each other.

While Relativity philosophy is a nice sci fi discussion its bearing on physical reality imo is nothing. For me, space is just coordinates inside volume, nothing to be bent or shaped.


I have always been into this subject and some things always bothered me. Space time was one of them. Then when I learned the history of black holes and the current theories I really was left scratching my head.

I was often mocked for suggesting comets were not big dirty snowballs, and the Rosetta Mission proved that assertion 100% correct

 

You do know Liebniz was a great religious figure - a Lutheran who tried to converge Lutheranism and Catholicism. The weight of knowledge added to science by religious figures is immense:

Oresme [bishop of Lisieux] discovered the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction.
Nicholas of Cusa [Catholic cardinal] developed the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion.
Pascal [Catholic philosopher] - Wager, Triangle, Law and Theorem
Joseph Priestley [Christian clergyman] attributed with discovering oxygen
Andre-Marie Ampere [Devout Catholic, claimed his first Holy Communion as one of the turning points in his life] Ampere named after him
Faraday [Glasite church elder] electromagnetic theory, electrolysis
Gregor Mendel [Augustinian Abbott] 'father' of genetics

 

True. Newton was deeply religious too. Not my point. In the long run Newton will have more effect on the future of mankind than the Apostles, for instance. That's my point.

 

I fear that religion and science will continue to combine in equal measure to fck up the future of mankind.

 

It has done a decent job ****ing it up so far Eugenics was only like.. 70 years ago, a blink of an eye in evolution terms. They call Eugenics "Genetics" these days

The big bang, creation out of nothing is pure religion. You cannot create something out of nothing. wtf is wrong with these mathematicians! Creating stuff from nothing. Universe from nothing, dark matter dark energy, gravity without mass.

Also, given a singularity is like 0 volumne.. that means that when matter goes in, technically it is no longer in existence.. seems legit

Now they are talking about white holes

 

Every hole's a goal, Sisu. It's a philosophy I live by

 

And just what is 'nothing'?

 

Don't be asking him questions, you feckin weirdo why ask questions why not do the research yourself blah blah etc

 

It seems Obama wants 50000 people to give up their cars to balance out his CO2 footprint.

With the doomsday clock at 3 mins to midnight. Social meltdown, wars and occupations, economic meltdown, epic banking fraud, trrrsmmm. Pollution. This is the greatst threat the planet faces.
@Tobes @terrifictraore Hail your leader

please log in to view this image

OK Obama, the climate has only been changing since forever like

 

Please explain why you have tagged me in on this, despite me accepting all of your very strange ideas on the world (and christ knows you really do have some strange ones) I never thought even you could come up with some warped version of reality that has Obama as my leader,

TBH i wonder why you have tagged me at all, its almost as if my very simple almost child like questions that you are unable to answer have in some way got under your skin, so much so that you are thinking of me every time you answer on the topic.

I have to say that I am flattered that i feature so much in your thinking (especially with you having all those thousands of hrs worth of "research" going round in your head) but there really is no need for you to fuss so much about me, all you need to do is answer my questions.

eg expand on your point to Obama about the climate always changing (you are right on this) maybe you could us the chart labelled figure 16 from Mcshane and wyner 2010 showing a Backcast from Bayesian Model of Section 5. CRU Northern Hemisphere annual mean land temperature to explain the cycle of change to me.

 

Newton also believed in alchemy and that God was the answer to all that was unknown and that the universe must have been created by a higher power. I guess that theory is true, until proven to be incorrect

 

It's not without flaws, but imagine Newton, Einstein and the greats of physics having work peer reviewed!

But it is the best system we currently have, without it anyone can publish data and the uneducated then quote this as fact!

 

As a percentage, I would like you to use your knowledge to put this as a percentage of all peer reviewed papers. It should show that it's a bad system, something that shouldn't be used if more than 50% have Ben retracted or discredited.

What I will then say is that the mainstream educational system had them pulled as it doesn't fit in with what they want us to know <biggrin>

Always a conspiracy

 

what general drivel is this, what are ye talkinga bout like, no answer to what, I don't usually read your posts on this thread, for obvious reasons.

Are you generalising about peer review, not that you understand how it actually works.

Peer review these days depends on one thing or another, either your paper agrees with the reviewer or it is unfalsifiable. If your paper agrees with work done by the reviewer, then there is no stringent falsification test, cos obviously a reviewer is not going to falsify his or her own work.

Let me explain how peer review actually operates in institutions these days.
Funding gets split between research groups and they all peer review each others papers. We are taking theoretical science here, not every science.

if Gal yam is peer reviewing you, anything you theorise or interpret that agrees with Yam's own work on black holes and such, well you are going to pass.
Sorry that is not science, that is the institution science

Crying peer reveiew is narrowing it down to the science that is acceptible for the peer reviewers and there have been many cases of reviewers even sitting on papers, getting their own students to do the work and publish first.

But you are aware of all this right? You know that there was 42 scientists all peer reviewing each others work, and alls getting funding from the same source, the IPCC politicians

If you understood even half of what you cack about, you'd know that peer review is hijacking of science, peer review is sciencst the instituton, not science the method.

Now which journals would you find acceptible? Are some better than others? Why yes, if you publish in the best journals then you agree with mainstream conslusions, because the reviewers are the degfacto mainstream opinion.

So others have to settle for less high profile journals, and somehow the former is more credible than the latter, without even looking at the actual science.. farce.

I suppose you didn;t read this Far and disagree because you don't know anything about the process you blab on about, but you got a like, so you felt good.

basically you say "science is not science until > those guys say so" these "guys" you know nothing about at all. Funny that, you claim certain invididuals are the authority, science has nothing to do with authority. Right is right peer review or no. Where did they did you up ffs?