Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
As a matter of fact, the reason you keep getting told to present your work in a manner acceptable to the physics community is not to dismiss you, but to see if you are right. The fact that you dont present it in our language is why you get dismissed. It may seem a bit selfish, but that is the way it works.
|
Your slipping away from the issue again: The willingness of MS physicists to accept substandard data reduction routines in the treatment of astrophysical data, while at the same time holding the feet of those who propose alternatives to the fire prevents new concepts from emerging.
As near as I can find, not one other physicist made a single public statement when the ESA threw out the results of the Huygens radar and used low resolution temperature and pressure data to plot Huygens decent. (The ESA press release, was very deceptive: It claimed 'all of the methods agreed', but 'all of the methods' did not include either of Huygens' radar systems, Huygens' sonar, or the VLA trianglulation results.)
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.htm
There has been very little public comment about the Gravity B probe scientists 'backing out' the frame dragging from unexpected forces experienced by the G probe gyroscopes. (The G probe team gets high marks for candor.)
Few are asking why the WMAP data releases are consistently years late; and once again the team is silent; other than to say there have been more difficulties with the calibration. Like supernova researchers, every time they release data, they reinvent the wheel.
Then we have the Anderson group, finally publishing what they have been trying to sort out on their own for more than a decade. At least they have publicly stated they cannot resolve the differences between what is expected and what they have measured; though I am like you, frustrated that in this case, not enough detail is provided to really sort this all out.
I can tell you that Anderson et al's treatment of the Pioneer anomally was exhaustive; and the residual effect cannot be attributed to known possible causes, simple or otherwise.
This solar system does not behave the way Newton anticipated; even with the the paltry GR corrections. And as long as principle science teams keep insisting Iapetus is a white moon painted with dark 'stuff' instead of the other way around, and as long as scientist are allowed to conclude Titan is covered with a thick layer of hydrocarbons when none of the physical or spectral evidence supports this conclusion, we will continue to wallow in dark stuff.
The evidence is there, step back and look at it without prior expections.