It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Elton
reply to post by F4guy
Looks like he puts his work on viXra.org, a non peer reviewed repository for folks who can not get published on arXiv.org.
vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_robitaille
valdonzontaz
The OP's claims are outrageous and what's more
there's no acknowledgement, therefore no acceptance of his claims anywhere
in the scientific community.
AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by GetHyped
Libertarian News is my blog and those are my words. I wrote them as a summary of the video and papers that are linked at the end of the article.
If you want to attack the article, attack the science. Stop going after reputations.
AnarchoCapitalist
reply to post by Bedlam
OMG call in the thought police!
Someone dares question the orthodoxy!
AnarchoCapitalist
That is incorrect.
www.ptep-online.com...
Well, maybe they submit electric universe articles to other electric universe pseudoscientists, and call it peer review. But that's not what we normally mean when we ask about "peer review".
Progress in Physics is an American scientific journal, registered with the Library of Congress (DC, USA): ISSN 1555-5534 (print version) and ISSN 1555-5615 (online version). Our journal is peer reviewed
He pointed out that:
Bedlam
Robitaille's an Electric Universer. Thus the paper.
grey580
Where's Phage when you need him?
lol
Arbitrageur
So far so good, but this doesn't mean we throw out black body or gravitational models, it simply means we try to recognize how natural phenomena differ from simplified models, and make the appropriate adjustments. This is the point that Robitaille seems to miss.
smithjustinb
grey580
Where's Phage when you need him?
lol
Why do you need Phage? Are you incapable of doing the research yourself? Phage is not the end all be all of scientific examination on ATS. Ill never understand why so many people like you celebrate his existence and revere him as if he is some super hero. No offense to him.
I'm not assuming that, in fact we see deviations from our models all the time. Look at all the discussion that went into the Pioneer Anomaly. There were people proposing new physics as one possibility to explain observations that didn't seem to match our models. But that was a perfect case of what I'm talking about, because it wasn't until we used existing physics to make a very careful model that the observed anomaly was explained by the more complicated, and more accurate model. Making such accurate models is hard.
AnarchoCapitalist
You guys are the one's assuming your models actually describe reality.
Arbitrageur
I'm not assuming that, in fact we see deviations from our models all the time. Look at all the discussion that went into the Pioneer Anomaly. There were people proposing new physics as one possibility to explain observations that didn't seem to match our models. But that was a perfect case of what I'm talking about, because it wasn't until we used existing physics to make a very careful model that the observed anomaly was explained by the more complicated, and more accurate model. Making such accurate models is hard.
AnarchoCapitalist
You guys are the one's assuming your models actually describe reality.
Robitaille even admits that the closer an object is to an ideal black body, the better the black body model works. But it's well known by most physicists that the simple black body model which applies to an ideal black body applies less and less as the object being observed becomes less and less like an ideal black body.
edit on 10-4-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
OccamsRazor04
reply to post by AnarchoCapitalist
All I have to say is I am sorry your article about utter BS is exposed as .. utter BS. I arrived late to the party and really there is no more to add.
I liken this to someone saying 1+1=1.999(infinity) so the standard model of mathematics that says 1+1=2 is wrong and should be thrown out.
"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend most all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Normal science, often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. As a puzzle-solving activity, normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none."
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962
- Thomas Kuhn
- page 5.
Thomas Kuhn performed a signal service for historiography of science by studying how new ideas and new ways of thinking displace the old. He invented the term 'paradigm shift' to describe what happens when 'normal science' runs into 'anomalies' and enters a 'crisis', which in turn leads to a 'scientific revolution'. Nobody had heard of such things before, so Kuhn had a scoop. He sketched some historical examples in iconoclastic style; the result is this short book, first published forty years ago and still wowing Cultural Studies students today.
Before Kuhn, we were taught in school that scientific progress was linear, that it was an unending progression of refinements and developments, with one "truth" leading to the next "truth." Kuhn's insights including pointing out that such a linear progression was mostly a lie. His thesis was that the major developments in science were mostly revolutionary. That some "truths" turned out to be false. Astronomy was revolutionized by Galielo and Copernicus, and man was divested from the center of the universe. Physics was revolutionized by Newton. Biology and Darwin. It didn't hurt that plate tectonics came along shortly after Kuhn published, and Kuhn looked like his model was predictive, too.
My favorite aspect of this book is how Kuhn describes people's blind resistance to new ideas and technology, even if it is something that will ultimately benefit mankind. In a moment of dark truth, Kuhn states that in many cases it is not a matter of convincing those who already established, but rather convincing the next generation and simply waiting for the current one to die off. It's both a guide to understanding how to really effect change in a world of stubborn thought, as well as a detailed history of innovations and the process required to make them mainstream. In its scathing criticism of the scientific establishment, it unveils how much further we could be if we did in fact adopt a linear structure for improving technology.
mikegrouchy
But of course he goes on to describe the entrenched resistance to exposing these suppressed novelties, saying that real change and progress usually has to wait for the old-guard to die as they never give up their view of what the world is like.