Thank you for your reply. You wrote:
>After all, in about any field, it's easy to come up with revolutionary
>interpretations of data if one isn't familiar with the broader data and
>theories developed to this point.
Didn't Einstein do what you recommend? He fabricated the cosmological
constant to make his equations yield a static universe - "the broader
data and theories developed to this point." And didn't he say that it
was the biggest mistake of his life?
>The best innovations in science are almost always from those intimately >and accurately familiar with the current data and theories who -then
>and only then- are in a position to critique and surpass them.
Poor Albert would not have had a chance with you and Glenn and should
never have had the opportunity to dethrone Newton because he was only an
obscure patent clerk. Yet, the unassailable data from the total eclipse
of the Sun of 1919 did just that.
According to your criteria, Rudolf Mossbauer also was eminently
unqualified to make his unassailable observations on "nuclear clocks."
And of course, he also won a Nobel.
Given poor Albert and poor Rudolf, perhaps poor Richard is too qualified
to join their company.
To reiterate, I am anxious to hear from anyone who has read Richard
Petersen's evidence.
Joseph