Einstein went off on research into unified field theory which mainstream ignores, but which some researchers have continued to pursue, and such bodges as constancy of lightspeed get updated anyway
see:http://www.unifiedfieldtheory.co.uk/ also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zF7DZoQgig Published on Nov 6, 2015Roger J. Anderton, Independent Researcher, UK “Modern Applications of Boscovich's Unified Field Theory” Boscovich provided a unified theory of point-particles, and this served as basis for modern quantum mechanics. Applications of Boscovich's theory to quantum problems, such as to modern chemistry will be considered based on the work of Dragoslav Stoiljkovich. The works of Stoiljkovich having not been published very much in English, and thus not been more widely known among English-speaking scientists. This author is now engaged in translating these works in corroboration with Stoiljkovich; works that highlight the modern work that is still being pursued based on Boscovich's unified field theory. On Monday, 24 October 2016, 11:54, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: Oops, what I meant to say was that it addresses the 'horizon' problem that the inflation theory addresses when even its own proponent is skeptical of it. The lambda / missing dark energy is one of the implications that anisotrophy generates because it no longer appears that energy is conserved or that the laws of physics have always been the same throughout the universe. On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: 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/C arbon_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 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
