Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: bjones on 23 Dec 2008 13:59 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:05:16 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 23, 10:42 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: -snip- >> "I regret not being able to be more helpful. >> >> Cordially, >> AV" >These reactions do not surprise me. At least you could try to keep your story straight. You previously wrote this: >Your sighing capitulation that no reputable journal will >publish your work is a defense mechanism, designed to shift >blame to someone else (the "system") for the lack of acceptance >of your ideas. And you also wrote this: >Gumption. No more excuses. So, which of your stories should we believe, the one about it being a "defense mechanism and an excuse," or the one about two summary rejections being "no surprise to you"? >Well, as I said, Brian, you have a nice story wrapped up for yourself. >You want to publish an article about a thought experiment, and you >want to do it in a mainstream journal. No, it's not just that I "want to," it's that I *have to* in order for it to count in physics. Why do I have to repeat this? >When the editorial staff at those selected mainstream journals >refuse to comply, you have a handy excuse to see this as not >being your fault. Since the rejections were based solely on my titles - which were anti-SR, the fault does not lie with me. You don't seem to get the picture; anything that even looks anti-SR will be summarily rejected without even a review. >But let's focus on what it is you are actually trying to publish >for a moment. What you have been challenged to publish is a >description of a working demonstration of absolutely synchronized >clocks. This specific call is what you claimed has been attempted >by you and rejected by editors at reputable journals. But the >comments above do not refer to a paper of that sort, and are >instead about a paper on a so-called SR paradox --- which has >nothing to do with a description of a working demonstration of >absolutely synchronized clocks. This naturally leads readers here >to suspect you of being less than honest. One would have to be a dummy to post something which would easily rouse such suspicions. Point 1: I did not say that either one of those submitted-&-rejected articles of mine was about absolute synchronization. Point 2: Only one of those articles (the one to the IJTP) was about absolute synchronization. After the IJTP summary rejection for no good cause other than "it is an anti-SR paper," I decided to try something different with the next journal; I decided to try to first prove my credibility by sending in a preliminary article that was simple and short. Here is the first part of that article: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Dr. van der Merwe, Being unaffiliated, and having written a paper on a very touchy topic, perhaps the best path for me to take is to provide a preliminary proof of my credibility before I even submit my paper. To that end, I respectfully submit the following brief paragraph, which contains my shortest such proof: ---------------------------------------------------------- As shown in the diagram, a rod is at rest relative to the x axis of an inertial coordinate system, with the rod's end points R1 and R2 coinciding respectively with x axis points X1 and X2. R1=======rod======R2 X1-----x axis-----X2------------- Let this rod be moved a little to the right, and then slid at a steady speed leftward (parallel and adjacent to the x axis) until points R1 and X1 once again coincide (in passing). An observer who is at rest wrt the x axis, and who is at this left-hand R1-X1 event then knows two important facts about the rod's other end point R2, viz., he knows that (1) this point exists, and he also knows that (2) this point must be either coincident with X2 or not. If not, then the rod's intrinsic length must have changed; however, if it is coincident, then distant simultaneity is not relative because the rod's ends could be used to absolutely synchronize clocks at X1 and X2. ---------------------------------------------------------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No one at the journal gave any sort of rebuttal, or made any comments at all directly regarding the above. I did not use crayon to write on a paper sack. I did not misspell "EINSTINE" (in my IJTP article). There was absolutely nothing about either of my articles that said "crank" or "rejection" except the fact that they were anti-SR. >Tell you what. Why don't you put whatever paper you are >*actually* trying to publish up on a blog, and post a link >to it here? Then we might be able to offer whatever suggestions >we can to help you get it published in a reputable journal. >There is then absolutely no risk to you, and provides an >intermediate step to achieving what you say you want -- >publication in a mainstream journal. > >PD How can there be no risk when anyone who sees it could then steal it? Even that staunch relativist John Baez (who has steadfastly refused to talk to me) may steal it, and he could probably get it published next week! /bjones/
From: Strich.9 on 23 Dec 2008 14:00 On Dec 23, 12:05 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Well, as I said, Brian, you have a nice story wrapped up for yourself. > You want to publish an article about a thought experiment, and you > want to do it in a mainstream journal. When the editorial staff at > those selected mainstream journals refuse to comply... Note that the editor does not provide a specific rebuttal but a mere hand waving... Like all the responses in these forums...
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 14:10 On Dec 23, 1:00 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 12:05 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well, as I said, Brian, you have a nice story wrapped up for yourself. > > You want to publish an article about a thought experiment, and you > > want to do it in a mainstream journal. When the editorial staff at > > those selected mainstream journals refuse to comply... > > Note that the editor does not provide a specific rebuttal but a mere > hand waving... Editors do not owe manuscript submitters a rebuttal of the submitter's ideas. Wherever did you get the idea that this would be an obligation. The *only* obligation a publisher has, if at all, is to inform the submitter of the decision to publish or not. *If* the publisher has preliminary interest in publishing the submitted article, then they will also typically provide the comments of reviewers that were commissioned at the behest (and cost) of the publisher, but those reviews will not be sought if the submission does not make the first cut. > > Like all the responses in these forums...
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Dec 2008 14:23 Strich.9 <strich.9993(a)gmail.com> wrote in message 90f1e3c7-886f-41c1-9bbb-63c1dddd6347(a)k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com > On Dec 23, 11:59 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> hehe... "regretfully" ... :-) >> > > Kind of like the ex-communication letters from the papacy... > > Like the one Galileo got... No, like the other 99.999% of imbeciles with brilliant new ideas. Dirk Vdm
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 23 Dec 2008 14:28
bjones <nipit(a)4sure.com> wrote in message 76d2l498scdtgbtf2phe48knv31rsm58au(a)4ax.com > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:05:16 -0800 (PST), > PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 23, 10:42 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > -snip- >>> "I regret not being able to be more helpful. >>> >>> Cordially, >>> AV" > >> These reactions do not surprise me. > > At least you could try to keep your story straight. > > You previously wrote this: >> Your sighing capitulation that no reputable journal will >> publish your work is a defense mechanism, designed to shift >> blame to someone else (the "system") for the lack of acceptance >> of your ideas. > > And you also wrote this: >> Gumption. No more excuses. > > So, which of your stories should we believe, the one about > it being a "defense mechanism and an excuse," or the one > about two summary rejections being "no surprise to you"? > >> Well, as I said, Brian, you have a nice story wrapped up for yourself. >> You want to publish an article about a thought experiment, and you >> want to do it in a mainstream journal. > > No, it's not just that I "want to," it's that I *have to* in > order for it to count in physics. Why do I have to repeat this? > >> When the editorial staff at those selected mainstream journals >> refuse to comply, you have a handy excuse to see this as not >> being your fault. > > Since the rejections were based solely on my titles - which were > anti-SR, the fault does not lie with me. > > You don't seem to get the picture; anything that even looks > anti-SR will be summarily rejected without even a review. > >> But let's focus on what it is you are actually trying to publish >> for a moment. What you have been challenged to publish is a >> description of a working demonstration of absolutely synchronized >> clocks. This specific call is what you claimed has been attempted >> by you and rejected by editors at reputable journals. But the >> comments above do not refer to a paper of that sort, and are >> instead about a paper on a so-called SR paradox --- which has >> nothing to do with a description of a working demonstration of >> absolutely synchronized clocks. This naturally leads readers here >> to suspect you of being less than honest. > > One would have to be a dummy to post something which would > easily rouse such suspicions. Point 1: I did not say that > either one of those submitted-&-rejected articles of mine > was about absolute synchronization. Point 2: Only one of > those articles (the one to the IJTP) was about absolute > synchronization. > > After the IJTP summary rejection for no good cause other than > "it is an anti-SR paper," I decided to try something different > with the next journal; I decided to try to first prove my > credibility by sending in a preliminary article that was simple > and short. Here is the first part of that article: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dear Dr. van der Merwe, > > Being unaffiliated, and having written a paper on a very > touchy topic, perhaps the best path for me to take is to > provide a preliminary proof of my credibility before I > even submit my paper. > > To that end, I respectfully submit the following brief > paragraph, which contains my shortest such proof: > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > As shown in the diagram, a rod is at rest relative to the > x axis of an inertial coordinate system, with the rod's > end points R1 and R2 coinciding respectively with x axis > points X1 and X2. > > R1=======rod======R2 > X1-----x axis-----X2------------- > > Let this rod be moved a little to the right, and then slid > at a steady speed leftward (parallel and adjacent to the x axis) > until points R1 and X1 once again coincide (in passing). An > observer who is at rest wrt the x axis, and who is at this > left-hand R1-X1 event then knows two important facts about the > rod's other end point R2, viz., he knows that (1) this point > exists, and he also knows that (2) this point must be either > coincident with X2 or not. If not, then the rod's intrinsic > length must have changed; however, if it is coincident, then > distant simultaneity is not relative because the rod's ends > could be used to absolutely synchronize clocks at X1 and X2. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > No one at the journal gave any sort of rebuttal, or made any > comments at all directly regarding the above. Brian, giving *any* sort of rebuttal of or comment to this kind of utter nonsense is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE without hurting the author's feelings. Remember, these people try to be POLITE. You REALLY HONESTLY don't get it, do you? Dirk Vdm |