Constellations?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2009, 08:02:01 AM

- NASA's Apollo images of the earth have not been peer reviewed.

No one would really "peer review" a photo. I'm not sure you understand what it means.

As far as I'm aware all NASA projects are peer reviewed. There are also countless peer reviews in which independent but knowledgable individuals can assess the work. Here's insight into Wikipedias Peer Review Process:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Apollo_8

The overwhelming opinion after all these "peer reviews" is that the photos are genuine.

The process of peer review in scientific research is conducted under "blind" conditions. You do your research and submit your paper to a journal. You only put your name on the cover page. The editor of the journal removes the cover page and sends your paper, without any identifying information, out to two or three experts in the field whose job it is to review your work and validate that you have accounted for all possible shortcomings and that your research has been done in a way that follows scientific protocol. The reviewers do not know who the author of the study is. They make their recommendations, then send it back to the editor, who then sends it back to the author. The author is informed either that the study is accepted "as is" (very rare), that specific revisions must be made and re-submitted, or that the article is not accepted for publication.

When you state that NASA projects are "peer reviewed," I don't think that what happens is actually "peer reviewing." If it's anything like what happens in universities, you have to submit a proposal detailing what you plan to do in your study in order to receive funding. That is a different process than "peer review."

Quote from: mazty88 on June 11, 2009, 01:10:36 PM

I put a pen in a glass of water.
The pen appears to bend.
Has the pen actually bent? No, it's an illusion. Any evidence that doesn't rely on the highly unreliable source that are the human senses?

"It's an illusion" is neither evidence or an explanation.

It's caused by light diffraction. The light emitted from the submerged portion of the pencil propagates at a different than the exposed portion, causing it to appear "bent" when it reaches our eyes. There's the explanation. The evidence is all in Maxwell's equations. The moral of that story is that "that's what is perceived" does not evidence make.

Sorry Tom, but it seems like the closest thing to evidence that FE has is that Bedford Canal Experiment, and the ship restoration experiment. So, based on the fact that a sunken ship can be restored from underwater, you think that its necessary to change the model of the ENTIRE universe, create new laws of physics, and redefine modern cosmology? Sorry, but it just doesn't add up...