The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 09, 2019, 04:28:48 PM

Title: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 09, 2019, 04:28:48 PM
https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure (https://wiki.tfes.org/Airy%27s_Failure)

Wow, an experiment failed to show motion of the Earth through the behavior of light? You know, it's almost like they were missing an extremely important axiom regarding the physics of light that would be established a few decades later, and that the equations and properties derived from it specifically explain the results of the experiment.

YOU KNOW, ALMOST.

Tom, I would advise caution in using the failures of 19th century experiments to measure the Earth's motion using light. Their results are almost invariably explained by special relativity.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2019, 04:42:40 PM
Special Relativity's second postulate was created as an illusion to explain these types of experiments that involve studying the horizontal motion of the earth, which always came up with a null result. It is explained on the Michelson-Morley Experiment page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

However, the second postulate of Special Relativity is not internally consistent. It is contradicted by many experiments, such as the Sagnac Experiment, which is basically the same Michelson-Morley experiment, except on a rotating platform. When the earth is not used as the moving platform, Einstein's light-consistency phenomena does not appear. There are many papers and resources on the subject.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0bc/0dfe3a7809b3adeff723aeea6363f3272850.pdf

Quote
It is believed that the Sagnac effect does not contradict Special Relativity theory because it is
manifest in non-inertial rotational motion; therefore, it should be treated in the framework of
General Relativity theory. However, several well-designed studies have convincingly shown that a
Sagnac Effect identical to the one manifest in rotational uniform motion is also manifest in
transverse uniform motion. This result should have been sufficient to falsify Special Relativity
theory. In the present article, we offer theoretical support to the experimental results by elucidating
the notion that the dynamics of transverse and rotational types of motion are completely equivalent.
Since the transverse Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity theory, it follows that the rotational
Sagnac effect contradicts Special Relativity theory as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=161&v=SWmlimH7laY
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 09, 2019, 05:05:16 PM
Funny thing about the Sagnac experiment: it uses a rotating reference frame, whereas the postulates of special relativity concern inertial reference frames. They're not applicable to rotation.

And if you're accepting the results of that experiment, then what makes a ring laser gyroscope, which relies on the same principle, so unreliable?

Edit: and yes I saw your changes, give me a minute to respond.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2019, 05:20:13 PM
Per the Ring Laser Gyroscope, it is a specialized consumer device, not an experiment which is referenced with well defined parameters and results that we can read about. It is said that the Ring Laser Gyroscope is a version of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Gale-Pearson_Experiment

Quote
The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment was a large-scale version of the Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer which attempted to measure the Sagnac Effect due to the rotation of the earth. It has been claimed that this experiment provided evidence for the earth's rotation.

From a work titled The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments (Archive) by Dr. Paulo N. Correa we read on p.5:

http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.2.pdf

Quote
The outcome of the MGP experiment was ambiguous, though maybe no more ambiguous than the small persistent positive shift observed in MM experiments. Composed of 269 separate tests with readings that varied from -0.04 to +0.55 of a fringe, and a mean at +0.26 fringes, the MGP experiment could be interpreted to yield a positive result of ≈ 0.3 km/s - therefore near the speed of the earth's rotation, but the result was of borderline significance. It could be said that the experiment was inconclusive because it adduced neither proof that there was a shift in the phase of the light beams, nor that there wasn't one.

Essentially the tests saw wild results. There was almost no change to light's velocity in one test, and then a lot of change in another test. It is perplexing that the rotation of the earth would start and stop when tested at different times. Only through the statistics was it claimed that the experiment saw the rotation of the earth. As stated above, the inconsistent results were ambiguous in nature and could offer no evidence of the shift in the phase of the light beams.

Importance of Consistency

In attempt of correlating such results with the rotation of the earth the mean is discussed, but what of the average or the median? What of the fact that one of the extremes is near zero? Which is the baseline that is being modified?

Consistency in empirical experimental investigation is of prime importance to science integrity. If one were to conclude from such an experiment that the earth is rotating, but also imagines that a mechanism is modifying the results from their own favored ideal to create the inconsistent results seen, the conclusion is fallacious. That imagined mechanism which modified the results could equally be creating those results. One sees that consistency is required for any valid test of a phenomena. In sciences which are not desperate to prove something, experiments with inconsistent results are often rejected altogether for that very reason.

According to the above, the results of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment was inconsistent and an algorithm was applied to get the desired result. If we are to say that the Ring Laser Gyroscope is the same device, then the same criticism would apply.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2019, 05:53:48 PM
The Sagnac Experiment, as just pointed out above, is not covered by Special Relativity, but by General Relativity.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2019, 06:03:23 PM
The Sagnac Experiment, as just pointed out above, is not covered by Special Relativity, but by General Relativity.

The paper I quoted addresses that belief.

Quote
It is believed that the Sagnac effect does not contradict Special Relativity theory because it is
manifest in non-inertial rotational motion; therefore, it should be treated in the framework of
General Relativity theory. However, several well-designed studies have convincingly shown that a
Sagnac Effect identical to the one manifest in rotational uniform motion is also manifest in
transverse uniform motion. This result should have been sufficient to falsify Special Relativity
theory.

How does the universe decide when physics does not apply to certain motions, anyway?
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2019, 06:22:10 PM
What a foolish thing to say. Why would you assume it is the universe deciding anything? Physical theories are human attempts at abstractions of what the universe does. Special Relativity came about as an attempt to provide a simplified case to try and understand how some major problems in physics could be reconciled. General Relativity then was developed to cover all the cases of Special Relativity as well as a great number more.

Either you really know less than I thought or you are employing silly rhetorical techniques to try and appear as if you have a valid complaint. I suspect the latter, and pity you if it’s the former.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 09, 2019, 07:48:02 PM
Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

Quote
The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically

At present, mainstream physicists seem to have fully accepted Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and to take it as the foundation of modern physics because the theory appears perfectly logical and its predictions seem to be supported by numerous experiments and observations. However, if one re-examines these experiments carefully and with an open mind, serious problems may emerge. The paper has examined many experiments that are considered as the evidences of relativistic effects, but found they either have null effects or are wrongly interpreted or calculated. For example, the behaviours of clocks in Hefele-Keating experiment interpreted as the results of relativistic time dilation caused by the relative speed of an inertial reference frame are actually absolute and do not change with the change of inertial reference frames; the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula. In fact, Hefele-Keating experiment indicates the existence of a medium in the space that can slow down the frequencies of atomic clocks when they have velocities relative to the medium, and Fizeau experiment reveals the existence of a medium called aether relative to which the speed of light is constant, though it is possible that the medium to slow down atomic clocks may be different from aether as multiple media may coexist in the space.

The existence of aether means that the two postulates of STR are wrong for light and electromagnetic waves because the speed of light and the electromagnetic wave equations should be valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local aether, just like the acoustic wave equation valid only in the inertial reference frame moving with the local air.

The paper has cleared the definition of the physical time and proved that the time of a physical clock is an invariant of Lorentz Transformation i.e. an invariant of inertial reference frames same as Galilean time. The Lorentz invariance of the clock time makes it possible to synchronize clocks in all inertial reference frames to produce the absolute and universal physical time as demonstrated in the universal synchronization of all the satellite clocks and ground clocks of the global positioning system. Therefore, the time of the STR is no longer the physical time measured with physical clocks.

Moreover, the paper has further proved that Lorentz Transformation is the same as to redefine time and space as functions of Galilean time and space to produce an artificially constant speed of light in all inertial reference frames. The relationship between the STR space-time and Galilean space-time has revealed that the time dilation and length contraction of the STR in a moving inertial reference frame observed on the stationary inertial reference frame are just illusions. Using the relationship can also prove that the real speed of light measured with clocks still follows Newton's velocity addition formula, which directly falsifies the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

All these findings lead us to conclude that the STR as a theory of physics is wrong. Thus, all relativistic spacetime model based physics theories (electromagnetic theory, quantum field theory, general theory of relativity, big bang theory, string theories, etc) become questionable. Disproving the STR and other related theories of physics will not lead to any crisis but instead open a new room for scientists to develop new theories for all the known and unknown physical phenomena. The paper has proposed a new experimental setup with which scientists will be able to measure the velocity of aether wind anywhere in the reachable universe and determine the velocity field of aether in the space for studying the dynamics of aether. The dynamics of aether may lead to the discovery of new methods to propel our space ships to speeds close to or even faster than the speed of light as the speed limit imposed by the STR is no longer valid, though there should exist an extremely difficult barrier for us to surpass the speed of light in the aether just as to surpass the sound barrier in the air.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 09, 2019, 10:42:01 PM
Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

Quote
snip
My first thought was that it was too generic of a title to be credible at all. Then I found out that they're 170 years old and publish one of the most respected journals out there.

I thought it was really bad that the most popular physical theory for the last 90+ years was rejected. But then I remembered that it also means that Bell's theorem is wrong, and that's good news.

This isn't to say that the world is actually flat though.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 09, 2019, 11:41:10 PM
So general relativity can still explain the Sagnac experiment?  Good then.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 06:12:29 AM
Sagnac himself also thought that his experiment contradicted SR. The complaint that it doesn't apply has been experimentally disproven. It also occurs in transverse uniform motion. See the paper linked above for references.

Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/ngpi-tst030116.php

Quote
snip
My first thought was that it was too generic of a title to be credible at all. Then I found out that they're 170 years old and publish one of the most respected journals out there.

I thought it was really bad that the most popular physical theory for the last 90+ years was rejected. But then I remembered that it also means that Bell's theorem is wrong, and that's good news.

This isn't to say that the world is actually flat though.

Just doing a little poking around for this paper Tom referenced. Apparently, on many levels the article cited regarding the paper entitled "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" by someone named Xinhang Shen, is considered dubious at best by some. First of all, as Tom misinterpreted, "Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism. At the bottom of the referenced page it states:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

As well, regarding the 'paper' in question, I found an article that disassembles a portion of the papers notions as well as calls out where it was published:

"Physics Essays doesn’t find mention on Jeffrey Beall’s list of predatory journals while it isn’t indexed by Thomson Reuters’s Web of Science either. However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Here is an intro on what the paper purports:

"A Non-challenge to the Special Theory of Relativity
Has the special theory of relativity been disproved?
No. But it’s disappointing that EurekAlert saw fit to carry the press release accompanying the ‘paper’ that made the startling claim. It’s impossible to call out all the specious claims being made everyday but quite possible and even more relevant to call out those who popularise it without necessary checks. EurekAlert is a service that also disseminates press releases from the journals Science and PNAS , with an audience that has come to trust what it puts out."

https://thewire.in/science/a-non-challenge-to-the-special-theory-of-relativity

There's more to the above article and worth a read.

I think the point being, Tom needs better, more solid references to begin to claim SRT has been "disproved". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The paper he cites is by no means extraordinary let alone evidence.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 06:21:37 AM
Quote
"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

Quote
However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 07:28:07 AM
Quote
"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

Quote
However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

Like I said, read the disclaimer on the page you cited:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Doesn't really fall into the "stamp of approval" bucket that you are asserting. I think you should find less dubious 'papers' to support your extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 07:31:18 AM
Quote
"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

Quote
However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

Like I said, read the disclaimer on the page you cited:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Doesn't really fall into the "stamp of approval" bucket that you are asserting. I think you should find less dubious 'papers' to support your extraordinary claims.

That's called a disclaimer. AAAS still selected it and posted it. They kept it there on their website. Are you saying that the AAAS is posting dubious papers? That claim in itself is dubious. You have not demonstrated that the AAAS is known for posting dubious papers or that they partner with dubious journals.

As far as I can see, AAAS is completely legitimate and highly respected.

If you are accusing them of posting dubious papers, then I would suggest for you to contact them and explain why it is wrong, since no one else has thought to, and link them to your post from the Wired science communication writer. If valid, surely such a respected organization will immediately remove such dubious material from their website.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Why Not on May 10, 2019, 07:48:46 AM

That's called a disclaimer. AAAS still selected it and posted it. They kept it there on their website. Are you saying that the AAAS is posting dubious papers? That claim in itself is dubious. You have not demonstrated that the AAAS is known for posting dubious papers or that they partner with dubious journals.

As far as I can see, AAAS is completely legitimate and highly respected.

If you are accusing them of posting dubious papers, then I would suggest for you to contact them and explain why it is wrong, since no one else thought to, and link them to your post from the Wired science communication writer. If valid, surely such a respected organization will immediately remove such dubious material from their website.


tom , how can you possibly reconcile this statement with your own world views?
So much information on that site dealing with astronomy, mathematics and physics that render a flat earth impossible.
I will post just one example :
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/nsfc-nsc050919.php
Do you wish to claim that they are posting dubious material?
Can we use information from AAAS as evidence in debate against you?
 
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2019, 07:55:12 AM
I don't think they curate their releases in any manner as controlled as you're implying Tom. www.eurekalert.org/releaseguidelines So long as it's getting published in a peer reviewed paper (which the one publishing this at least purports to be) eurekalert will post or allow to be posted, a notification about the release of the paper. This doesn't imply an endorsement of the paper whatsoever.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 08:02:59 AM
Quote
"Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved..." is untrue. In this matter, AAAS and EurekaAlert simply published an abstract and notice that this article would be published in something called, "Physics Essays". Most likely it is a paid mention through the AAAS/EurekaAlerts mechanism.

Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?

They are reviewing it and giving it their stamp of approval, obviously, no matter what you assert.

Quote
However, search hard enough and you’ll find a Wikipedia talk-page mentioning that the journal is among those commonly cited on the encyclopaedia when an author is making dubious claims."

Wikipedia talk page? Why not just ask your mailman if he thinks that relativity is true?

What are the dubious claims that one needs to 'search hard' for? Criticisms of relativity or the standard model?

AAAS posted it. They kept it there without modification. They approved it.

Like I said, read the disclaimer on the page you cited:

"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

Doesn't really fall into the "stamp of approval" bucket that you are asserting. I think you should find less dubious 'papers' to support your extraordinary claims.

That's called a disclaimer. AAAS still posted it. They kept it there on their website. Are you saying that the AAAS is posting dubious papers? That claim in itself is dubious. You have not demonstrated that the AAAS is known for posting dubious papers or that they partner with dubious journals.

Listen, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how this works. On the page you cited, under the title of the release, it states:

"Public Release: 1-Mar-2016
The special theory of relativity has been disproved theoretically
A paper titled 'Challenge to the special theory of relativity' to be published on Physics Essays
International NAC Society"

As long as the paper is to be published in a peer reviewed journal it's eligible to have a "News Release" on EurekaAlert. It's not 'endorsed' by AAAS/EurekaAlert.

As well the news release abstract on EurekaAlert was created by the International NAC Society. And says so again in the upper righthand corner where the media contact info is:

Media Contact
Lixin Zhou
press@nacgeo.com
416-496-6110
http://www.nacsociety.org

Go to http://www.nacsociety.org. The last article they posted is for this paper:

"March 1, 2016 - The Special Theory of Relativity Has Been Disproved Theoretically
NAC Geographic Products Inc. announced that a paper titled "Challenge to the Special Theory of Relativity" authored by Xinhang Shen, President of NAC Geographic Products Inc. is to be published on the issue of March 2016 of Physics Essays"

So the President of NAC Geographic Products Inc. wrote a paper about how he thinks he has disproved SRT, gets it into a journal and his company gets a media article over to EurekaAlerts to promote it.

Apparently Physics Essays Journal is known for accepting fringe stuff. Nothing wrong with that. All I'm saying is that:

A) You are being misleading with your statement, "Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science is publishing content which states that SR has been disproved through its EurekaAlert website". Their rules are, they will publish a NEWS RELEASE about a paper that is published in a peer reviewed journal. They are not publishing the paper, just the news release provided to them. It's called "publicity". And their disclaimer again, for the third time:
"Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system."

B) If you're just going to cherry pick some random paper written by the president of some company that got said paper into a sort of fringe journal without reviewing the paper or any of the comments about the paper and just rely on a press release to try and refute all of SRT, you are personally not firing on all cylinders and need to rethink your approach to things.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 08:05:57 AM
It says right here in their FAQ:

Quote
News releases must meet EurekAlert!'s longstanding eligibility guidelines in order to be accepted and hosted on the website. Institutions must pay a fee to submit news releases news releases to EurekAlert!. Payment of submission fees does not guarantee acceptance of news releases.

Then on their elegibility page:

Quote
at our sole discretion, news releases that may be perceived to promote biased findings, raise unanswered questions about potential conflicts of interest, and/or carry an advocacy agenda unfounded in scientific research, may be deemed inappropriate for the site.

The article is on the website, so they therefore did not deem it inappropriate, unfounded in scientific research, or biased.

It sure sounds like they are reviewing the content and giving it their approval it to me.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Why Not on May 10, 2019, 08:06:53 AM
tom, would you like to comment on any of the following?

What a dying star's ashes tell us about the birth of our solar system
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/uoa-wad042619.php

Dark matter exists: The observations which question its presence in galaxies disproved
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-04/sisd-dme042919.php

Telescopes in space for even sharper images of black holes
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/run-tis050619.php

When it comes to planetary habitability, it's what's inside that counts
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-05/cifs-wic050119.php

Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 08:24:05 AM
And maybe you could comment on these "approved" by AAAS/EurekaAlerts:

New ISERV tool enables rapid view of Earth images from space
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/nsc-nit092314.php

Pioneering research from the ISS
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-04/tuob-prf040618.php

Satellite measurements of the Earth's magnetosphere promise better space weather forecasts
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-08/ku-smo080818.php
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: markjo on May 10, 2019, 06:53:01 PM
Oh really? I can pay to post a "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper there?
No, because Eureka Alerts doesn't host papers.  Rather, it hosts press releases about papers so you could probable pay them to post a press release about your "The Earth is a Dinosaur" paper.
Quote from: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2018/10/its-time-for-aaas-and-eurekalert-to-crack-down-on-misinformation-in-pr-news-releases/
AAAS is the world’s largest multidisciplinary scientific society. It organizes conferences, publishes peer-reviewed journals, and generally advocates for science literacy and the responsible use of science in all areas of public life. But in a troubling contradiction, it’s also home to a global clearinghouse for unvetted PR messages from universities, medical centers, journals, drug companies and other organizations who pay the EurekAlert! service to broadcast their new releases.

The messages put out by these organizations sometimes contain egregious levels of spin and exaggeration designed to attract the attention of journalists and the public. That spin and exaggeration can find its way into news stories or get picked up by aggregators and rebroadcast to the public verbatim.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 07:26:20 PM
According to that same article the organization insists that they are providing oversight of the content they host:

Quote
EurekAlert!’s response

When told that experts in health-related communication were calling for more robust quality controls at EurekAlert!’, the Director of Editorial Content Strategy, Brian Lin, suggested that the newswire is already providing adequate oversight of its content and has little need to do more. “Even though the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of a news release ultimately lies with the issuing institution, EurekAlert! as a distribution platform has always taken an active role in achieving a basic level of integrity in the content we host, precisely because we are part of a scientific society and because we value the trust that reporters, public information officers (PIO), and members of the public place on us,” he said.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 10, 2019, 07:31:11 PM
What an underwhelming statement of oversight integrity.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2019, 08:12:04 PM
Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 10, 2019, 08:41:17 PM
According to that same article the organization insists that they are providing oversight of the content they host:

Quote
EurekAlert!’s response

When told that experts in health-related communication were calling for more robust quality controls at EurekAlert!’, the Director of Editorial Content Strategy, Brian Lin, suggested that the newswire is already providing adequate oversight of its content and has little need to do more. “Even though the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of a news release ultimately lies with the issuing institution, EurekAlert! as a distribution platform has always taken an active role in achieving a basic level of integrity in the content we host, precisely because we are part of a scientific society and because we value the trust that reporters, public information officers (PIO), and members of the public place on us,” he said.

Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 09:33:29 PM
Quote
Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious. The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science. In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

Your accusation that the AAAS is posting trash to its website is hardly compelling.

The examples in the link Markjo posted are about things like "eating more fish could prevent Parkinson’s disease based on an in vitro lab study of fish proteins" and "magnetized wire could be used to detect cancer in people based on a study conducted in pigs." All of that could be true.

What studies did your source create or cite to contradict those sources?

Nothing.

Thus it is actually your source which is trash. Experiments show the truth. Not opinion. I would suggest learning what science is and is not. Someone saying "not true" and "dubious!!" is not science. Science needs to be demonstrated. Show me what scientific method your source followed to make those claims. The sources in the studies in question certainly did use the scientific method of experimentation.

If your source cannot follow simple science integrity then it is not science--it's rubbish. Your source needs more than opinion to call such studies trash.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2019, 09:47:58 PM
Quote
Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious.

Evidence? You can't just make a claim like this without evidence.

Quote
The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science.

Again, evidence? Baseless claim, whereas the article linked above provides multiple examples and success that the organization pays little to no attention to vetting these links.

Quote
In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.

Inconclusive at best final conclusion based upon faulty premises. You've not shown any evidence they apply a strict filter, not that they support all articles they link to. In fact we have evidence just above starting the opposite. I.e.

Quote
AAAS disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of material posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions and for the use of any information obtained through EurekAlert!. Support from sponsors does not influence content or policy.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2019, 09:55:59 PM
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

Your accusation that the AAAS is posting trash to its website is hardly compelling.

The examples in the link Markjo posted are about things like "eating more fish could prevent Parkinson’s disease based on an in vitro lab study of fish proteins" and "magnetized wire could be used to detect cancer in people based on a study conducted in pigs." All of that could be true.

What controlled studies did your source create or cite to contradict those sources?

Nothing.

Therefore it is actually your source which is trash. Experiments show the truth. Not opinion. I would suggest learning what science is and is not. Someone saying "not true" and "dubious!!" is not science. Science needs to be demonstrated. Show me what scientific method your source followed to make those claims. The sources in the studies certainly did use the scientific method of experimentation.

If your source cannot follow simple science integrity then it is not science--it's rubbish. Then need more than opinion to tell us that the studies that the AAAS is posting are trash.

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 10, 2019, 10:04:00 PM
Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence which the organization references. That is not how science work. If you think something is false you must prove yourself through experiment.

However, your efforts at disparaging this organization appears fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 10, 2019, 10:22:36 PM
Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news. Thanks.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence those opinions are complaining about.

However, your efforts appear fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.
It only shows they will do so when asked, not that they always do. Else the disclaimer on every article would be unnecessary. Accordingly, I have sent an email request asking that they review the article in question and remove it if it has as little merit as many online have suggested.

As it is late on a Friday however, my hopes for a speedy reply are low.

Edit: I in fact received a reply they do not respond outside business hours, so we will unfortunately have a few days to wait for a reply.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: markjo on May 10, 2019, 11:32:12 PM
According to that same article the organization insists that they are providing oversight of the content they host:

Quote
EurekAlert!’s response

When told that experts in health-related communication were calling for more robust quality controls at EurekAlert!’, the Director of Editorial Content Strategy, Brian Lin, suggested that the newswire is already providing adequate oversight of its content and has little need to do more. “Even though the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of a news release ultimately lies with the issuing institution, EurekAlert! as a distribution platform has always taken an active role in achieving a basic level of integrity in the content we host, precisely because we are part of a scientific society and because we value the trust that reporters, public information officers (PIO), and members of the public place on us,” he said.
Come now Tom, where's your good old fashioned Zetetic skepticism?  What exactly do they mean by "a basic level of integrity"?  Did they read the paper in question to verify that the press release accurately reflects the content of the paper?  Have you read the paper in question to verify that it says what you think it says? 
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 11, 2019, 06:42:47 AM
Quote
Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious. The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science. In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.

No, wrong again. This thread has officially turned into Bishop’s Failure. These are press releases. Yours was written by the papers author/people and submitted to eureka alert. Perhaps as a paid submission. As long as the paper is in a peer reviewed journal eureka alerts will copy and paste the the press release and post it along with their disclaimer. Like I wrote, it’s called publicity.

If you got a flat earth paper into a peer reviewed journal, wrote a press release for it and submitted it to eureka, they would post your press release, most likely for a fee. Why don’t you give it a try. Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 13, 2019, 05:02:55 PM
Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news. Thanks.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence those opinions are complaining about.

However, your efforts appear fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.
It only shows they will do so when asked, not that they always do. Else the disclaimer on every article would be unnecessary. Accordingly, I have sent an email request asking that they review the article in question and remove it if it has as little merit as many online have suggested.

As it is late on a Friday however, my hopes for a speedy reply are low.

Edit: I in fact received a reply they do not respond outside business hours, so we will unfortunately have a few days to wait for a reply.
Well this bodes ill for any suggestions of strong quality control. I've received word that requests for takedowns or title adjustments should be sent through the media contact for a listing. In this case the contact is the very man who wrote the article!

I will attempt to request he remove it or similar, but I do not have high hopes. In the meantime I will look for other options.

Either way, this pretty much nails down that AAAS and EurekAlert do indeed have very little hand normally in these press releases. As the earlier article stated.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 13, 2019, 09:46:42 PM
If they aren't taking it down or fixing it as they do with other material, then it sounds like EurekaAlert! is promoting it.

https://www.eurekalert.org/static.php?view=statement20110118

Quote
The non-profit research news service EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011. The news release was swiftly removed from EurekAlert!, and staff are taking steps to set the record straight with all reporters who had seen it.

The news release, submitted by Marshall Hoffman of Hoffman & Hoffman public relations on behalf of Universal Ecological Fund (Fundación Ecológica Universal FEU-US), reported a rate of global warming inconsistent with other respected sources of information regarding global climate change.

EurekAlert! is a non-profit research news service, supported by a global consortium of leading science, technology, health, and social science institutions, providing free public access to an array of science-related information as well as free embargoed access for journalists.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Curious Squirrel on May 13, 2019, 10:24:35 PM
If they aren't taking it down or fixing it as they do with other material, then it sounds like EurekaAlert! is promoting it.
Quote

B does not follow A at all Tom. Not only is this post from 8 years ago, but there's a limit to what one person can do. You're letting your bias dictate what you see again. Reminder: If they heavily monitored postings they would have no need for their disclaimer.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. No reply from the media contact yet ( not that I expect one) and if I don't get one by Wednesday I'll attempt a more direct request with EurekAlert.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: garygreen on May 13, 2019, 11:30:49 PM
people actually keep metrics on this sort of thing.  for example, this paper has been read/downloaded a number of times and never been cited.  to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community is really not accurate.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhyEs..29..142S/metrics 
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2019, 12:00:45 AM
According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

https://www.quora.com/Did-most-of-Einsteins-papers-really-have-no-citations

Quote
Bill Bray, (Retired) PhD/Physicist R&D (Director) at U.S. Department of Defense

"Papers written by Einstein [not co-authored] have been cited ZERO TIMES in the past century."

Are Einstein's works invalid?

According to Researchgate the paper has nearly 5000 reads (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity), which is a quite different number than 65.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: garygreen on May 14, 2019, 12:18:40 AM
According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

https://www.quora.com/Did-most-of-Einsteins-papers-really-have-no-citations

oh, shit, well if some random guy on quora says it, then it must be true.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=%20%20author%3A%22%5Eeinstein%2C%20A%22&sort=citation_count%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc

einstein's papers have been cited thousands of times.  lol ffs just scroll down to the references section of the very paper you posted.

According to Researchgate the paper has nearly 5000 reads (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297527784_Challenge_to_the_Special_Theory_of_Relativity), which is a quite different number than 65.

that's worse.  if it's been read 5,000 times and never cited in anyone else's work, then it's even less accurate to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community.

getting published in a journal doesn't imply that the publishers agree with your results.  that's not how it works.  it's really not how it works in a journal like physics essays
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2019, 12:52:30 AM
Research better. Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited. It's right there in the link you provided.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/p_=0&q=%20%20author%3A%22%5Eeinstein%2C%20A%22&sort=citation_count%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc

Sort by Citation Count and click on Go to Bottom.

(https://i.imgur.com/9nOVlwX.png)

I count 114 Einstein entries with zero citations. 77 with five or under.

291 entries total. Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

Anything not cited is invalid, right?
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: garygreen on May 14, 2019, 01:48:53 AM
Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited.

then it sounds like no one was particularly impressed with those papers.  is there a point to all the goalpost moving?

Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

what difference does a co-author make?  nearly all scientific papers (esp physics) have co-authors.

also einstein has 14 papers with 100+ citations as the sole author.  that's outrageous.  that's like 10 sigma production.  he's got to be one of the most cited names in physics.

Anything not cited is invalid, right?

no, what i said was, "to say that it's endorsed by the scientific community is really not accurate."  and it's not.  citations are pretty much a direct measure of "how much does the scientific community care about this reference."
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: stack on May 14, 2019, 01:51:55 AM
I'm not sure how far back Google Scholar goes, but here's your guy, 0 citations:

(https://i.imgur.com/SXMHN8I.png?1)

Einstein, a partial list:

(https://i.imgur.com/Qb8QpAv.png?1)

In any case, EurekaAlert publishes press release submissions that meet their guidelines, e.g., referencing an underlying peer reviewed published paper. Along with a check for $335.

Have you actually read the paper or are you just smitten with the press release title and abstract?

Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2019, 01:54:49 AM
Einstein has a ton of work that is not cited.

then it sounds like no one was particularly impressed with those papers.  is there a point to all the goalpost moving?

Take out the co-authored papers and we find that much of Einstein's individual work was not cited.

what difference does a co-author make?  nearly all scientific papers (esp physics) have co-authors.

Moving goalposts? Those are the arguments in quora link: If we take out the co-authored papers we find that much of what Einstein published is not cited.

And therefore, according to you, much of Einstein's work has been rejected by the scientific community. There are no other reasons for a paper to go uncited.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: garygreen on May 14, 2019, 02:16:20 AM
actually what you said was

According to this guy, Einstein was not cited.

then you quoted some guy who says:

Quote
I just had a geek look into this for me. Papers written by Einstein [not co-authored] have been cited ZERO TIMES in the past century.

Papers written by other authors hypothesizing on Einstein’s work have been cited 189,132 times. No one has read his original papers. The above authors [over the entire past century] do not cite Einstein’s original papers.

but however you want to modify that statement, it's outrageously false.  he has 14 papers with 100+ citations as the solo author.  those are crazy numbers.  he's one of the most cited figures in physics, even if you throw out his papers with co-authors.

and again, what different does having a co-author make? 
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2019, 02:26:31 AM
The title of the quora link says "most", not "all".

Clearly, people only really cared when Einstein was making up illusions for why the earth seemed to be horizontally motionless and for why the earth seemed to be accelerating upwards. Einstein pushed the party line and solved some mysteries to keep the model alive.

Maybe if this NAC Society guy was pushing the party line and making up some illusions helpful for the model he would get some citation as well. The number of citations clearly has nothing to do with the validity of a work, as exampled by much of Einstein's work going uncited.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2019, 02:56:29 AM
The work makes similar statements about the Fizeau experiment that other journals make.

NAC: "the corrected calculation of Fizeau experiment based on Newton's velocity addition formula is much closer to the experimental measurement than the result calculated based on the relativistic velocity addition formula."

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/optical-fizeau-experiment-with-moving-water-is-explained-withoutfresnels-hypothesis-and-contradicts-special-relativity-2090-0902-1000207.php?aid=86879

Abstract: "Fizeau experiment actually proves not partial, as the special relativity asserts, but complete dragging of the light by moving medium. The decrease of the fringe shift in the Fizeau's two-beam interferometer is explained not with wrong Fresnel's aether drag hypothesis but with the phase deviations arising in the interfering beams because of Doppler shift of the frequencies. Fizeau experiment does not prove but, on the contrary, refutes Einstein's theory of relativity."
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2019, 10:09:07 AM
The title of the quora link says "most", not "all".

Clearly, people only really cared when Einstein was making up illusions for why the earth seemed to be horizontally motionless and for why the earth seemed to be accelerating upwards. Einstein pushed the party line and solved some mysteries to keep the model alive.

Maybe if this NAC Society guy was pushing the party line and making up some illusions helpful for the model he would get some citation as well. The number of citations clearly has nothing to do with the validity of a work, as exampled by much of Einstein's work going uncited.

You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases? This isn’t news and has nothing to do with his highly regarded work on Relativity. One person is capable of succeeding and failing in their field within their lifetime. We are seeing it now with a Stephen Hawking; his papers are not met with much acclaim anymore despite his extremely important work on unifying cosmology and quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: 9 out of 10 doctors agree on May 15, 2019, 03:35:24 PM
You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases?
Didn't he get a Nobel prize for his QM work though? Or are you referring to more obscure work?
Title: Re: Airy's "failed" experiment
Post by: Rama Set on May 15, 2019, 06:38:06 PM
You know Einstein’s did a bunch of work on Quantum Mechanics that was poorly regarded and seen as him trying to validate his biases?
Didn't he get a Nobel prize for his QM work though? Or are you referring to more obscure work?

I was thinking of his work on finding a unified theory.