I just watched a documentary titled "Einstein's Biggest Blunder" which postulates that the speed of light is not a constant, as some evidence already suggests.
https://cosmolearning.org/documentaries/einsteins-biggest-blunder-853/ The anisotrophy of light is becoming a topic that is no longer taboo in modern physics. Not only does this address the 'flatness problem' but it also addresses the lambda / missing dark energy in the universe. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating > scientific evidence. > ***When it comes to cold fusion, Huzienga quotes ONLY outlier evidence. > When it comes to Carbon 14 dating, Jed is saying that the overall > (mainstream) evidence is appropriate for discussion. > > I agree with Jed. The OVERALL C14 evidence is appropriate for discussion, > and a good place to start is with the Wikipedia entry which gives ample > credence to errors & inaccuracies. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating > > > When you say that Jed is "no better than Huzienga when it comes to > evaluating scientific evidence", it amounts to a LENR insult. Jed accepts > the wide range of evidence for cold fusion, as well as C14 dating. You, on > the other hand, seem to only accept the evidence you want to accept. And > that's exactly what you're accusing Jed of doing. Hypocrisy, thy name is > jojo. > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jed, if you doubt that, then look up the reference themselves. Last time >> I checked, "Science" is and was a reputable publication. >> >> >> You like to make these qualified statements to try to wiggle yourself >> from a tight spot. You claim these results are errors, outlier or >> instrument errors,. Now, you are saying you wouldn't know. If you don't >> know, how can you say they were instrument errors. How do you know they >> were imaginary, or fully explicable or gathered by someone who does not >> understand how instruments work. What qualifies you to make an assertion >> like that? Were you there? >> >> You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a >> belief system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you >> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better >> than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence. >> >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating >> >> Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper >>> of wide circulation. >>> >> >> I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you >> saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the >> authors, and used to point out problems with the technique? An article on >> blood pressure monitors would point out problems that produce the wrong >> readings, such as 180/160 when the correct number is 130/85 (an actual >> example). Finding and explaining problems is a good thing. >> >> >> >>> Do you think these are all errors? >>> >> >> I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully >> explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how >> instruments work. >> >> >> >>> Don't you think they would have checked for errors before publishing >>> it? >>> >> >> If these are errors, then the editors and authors failed to discover >> them. That happens in science. It happens in every institution. That is why >> trains sometimes smash together, airplanes crash, banks fail, programs give >> the wrong answer or stop dead, and doctors sometimes amputate the wrong >> leg. People everywhere, in all walks of life, are prone to making drastic >> mistakes. To err is human. >> >> >> >> >>> I was challenged for proof that Carbon dating is unreliable, these are >>> just a few I found. >>> >> >> You do not have enough expertise in this subject to find proof, or judge >> whether you have found it. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
