In Reply to: What a crock! posted by Jon Risch on March 24, 2004 at 17:23:45:
Their measurements, using their equipment, and their techniques, etc. failed to come up with the same measurement results as John C.Bruno used the same technique as Curl. Using much higher resolution equipment.
This does not prove that John Curl's measurements are somehow at fault, or are to be dismissed.
So how many failures to reproduce Curl's results will it take before Curl's measurements can be dismissed?
These other fellows measurement's were hardly presented in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, we were not privy to all the details and specifics.
What details and specifics would you like to be privy to?
How can you possibly claim that JC's measurements are faulty, based on two casual non-published results that probably did not fully duplicate his ?
They didn't even partially duplicate his results.
But again, how many failures to duplicate John's results using more sophisticated, higher resolution equipment will it take?
You want peer review? Ok, get to it. Instead of throwing up smoke screens, let's see some valid criticism of Bruno's measurements. You said you weren't privy to all the details and specifics. Again, what details and specifics would you like to know?
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: What a crock! - Steve Eddy 18:42:29 03/24/04 (0)