Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR

On Aug 30, 6:55 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 30, 9:34 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Aug 29, 6:44 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 29, 3:12 pm, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 29, 1:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 29, 9:28 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 12:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 28, 10:58 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 27, 11:21 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 27, 10:04 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 25, 3:29 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, you are mistaken. You are apparently under the impression that the
only necessary justification in doing an experiment is believing
enough in a theory to want to test it. That is simply wrong, and not
how experimental science is done, nor how it should be done.

I am not saying that at all. I proposed some new experiments to test
the validity of the claims of SR that there is no absolute motion. The
proposal was rejected without commenting on the reason for the
rejection.

And I'll clue you in to a little secret, Ken. The agency reviewing
your proposal looks for certain minimum criteria for quality of
proposal. If it meets these minimum criteria, then it sends the
proposal out to peer reviewers (physicists) for comments on the
quality of the proposal.

Some of the minimum criteria for an experimental proposal is a clear
demonstration that the proposer:
- understands the requirements of experimental precision
- understands the equipment that is needed to achieve that precision
- is aware of the quality and precision of results obtained by other
experiments, whether of similar method and approach or not, and can
demonstrate that the quality and precision of the results of the
proposed experiment are competitive or better than the existing ones
- is able to justify the costs (both material and personnel) required
to perform the experiment.

This is not an "infinite hoop". This is a MINIMUM set of criteria.>From what I have seen in your published documents, you have not met

any of these criteria.

It is a waste of time talking to you. You can stay ignorant till the
day you die.

I'm not surprised you don't like what I have to say, Ken. But it is
the truth. And you have put yourself in a hopeless position. The good
news is that it isn't too late to back up, start again, and do it
right -- or at least better.

I have no intention of bashing my head against a stone wall over and
over again. There is no chance for me to get a grant to do my
experiments no matter what I do. The good news is the internet and
that what I have in my website will live on no matter what you
mainstream physicist think.

And the internet is where it will remain. If you want to do something
different so that it will also appear in books and in classrooms and
in references in research articles, then you know what you have to do.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's OK. If my theory is the final theory it will evantually
discovered to be so. What is sad is that you will die without knowing
that if my proposed experiments will refute the claims of SR. :-(

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... only necessary justification in doing an experiment is believing ... quality of the proposal. ... demonstration that the proposer: ... understands the equipment that is needed to achieve that precision ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... quality of the proposal. ... demonstration that the proposer: ... understands the equipment that is needed to achieve that precision ... What is sad is that you will die without knowing ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)