swansont

frankglennjacobs@gmail.com has been suspended a week for continuing to post "SWEG" treatises, despite being told not to.

forex has been suspended for repeatedly re-opening closed topics.

There is no data to interpret for quantum gravity or string theory.

You make different assumptions about what's going on. One model of gravity was that heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. That was rejected once it was tested. But there is no room for a different interpretation of the results; under gravity alone objects fall with the same acceleration.

AFAIK the holographic principle is (currently) an untestable part of an untestable theory. So I don't see where interpretation comes into it.

With the caveat that we are not here to discuss the particulars or alternatives, consider the Michelson-Morely experiment. You expect to measure a fringe shift based on 30 km/s of motion. You measure basically zero. There is no room for interpretation here, in the context of what the experiment was designed to do. It rejects the model. That show the power of models and science's habit of quantifying results. True, but you should have known how much data you need. Part of "well-designed" is knowing kind of signal/noise you need and whether you can reach the required precision. But — and your comment leads me to this point — the broader picture is that in science the avenue of doing a better measurement is open to you.

Turn this around: if the evidence can be interpreted multiple ways you are either leaning away from science and toward philosophy (i.e. your model is lacking) or your experiment was not designed very well. A good experiment tied in with a precise model should not leave you with interpretations to mull.

Since they are largely non-overlapping areas of inquiry, the answer is almost by definition "yes"

Roger Dynamic Motion has been put in stasis for a week for repeatedly violating our advertising rules and thread hijacking. ———— coded has been banned as a sockpuppet of Tom O'Neil

Pymander has been suspended a week for thread hijacking and repeated soapboxing. This is a discussion site, not a pulpit.

Velocity_Boy has requested a ban, and we have agreed to his request.

tkadm30 has been banned for repeatedly opening up threads on the same topics, after they've been locked and he was told to stop (and suspended twice before)

mantraphilter has been suspended a week for violating our rules on civility.

msetlur has been banned as a sockpuppet of mpc755 and his many incarnations.

Dave Moore suspended 3 days for being a (point) jerk.

Suspension of zbigniew.modrzejewski has been extended to indefinite because he used a sockpuppet to evade suspension.

zbigniew.modrzejewski has been suspended a week for spamming the forums with off-topic nonsense (of both the pet theory and off-topic commentary kinds) and the above-mentioned sockpuppetry ————— tkadm30 has returned from suspension only to revisit his chemtrail nonsense that we told him to not post, so he will not return for at least 30 days

! Moderator Note The term was defined/clarified in the OP. Let's stay on-topic.

That doesn't answer my question.

! Moderator Note Which discussion do you wish to pursue? Asking the question or presenting your own hypothesis? You don't get to do both in one thread.

! Moderator Note Please stop doing this. ! Moderator Note And while I'm at it, please stop doing this. If you have concerns about rules violations, use the report post function. This has no place in the current discussion. ! Moderator Note The request was for "links to peer reviewed articles, or articles written by reputable authors"

tkadm30 has been suspended a week for repeated thread hijacking (if we tell you to stop introducing a topic into threads on other subjects, it's best to stop doing it)

gustavoo has been banned as a sockpuppet of Jaya Jagannath

! Moderator Note Several recent OT posts have been split off to the trash. Which can happen if you aren't addressing the topic under discussion.