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: Strich.9 on 23 Dec 2008 14:46 On Dec 23, 2:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > snip more whining... The editors owe it to science... But seeing they are a band of priests, then you are right, they do not owe anybody anything...
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 14:47 On Dec 23, 12:59 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:05:16 -0800 (PST), > > PD <TheDraperFam...(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"? I did not say I endorsed the rejections you received. I said I was not surprised. Many journals take particular stances on what sorts of articles they are interested in. This is why many professional physicists find that they have to submit their articles to a half- dozen journals (or more) before being accepted at one (or not at all). This does not mean that it is a defensible decision or a value judgment but it is certainly their prerogative -- their unquestionable prerogative. > > >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? Because you don't have to. Stephen Wolfram is a great example of someone who has decided not to do that. You have chosen the channel that most *professional physicists* have to utilize for it to count in physics. The reason why that channel is mandatory for them is that certain quality control devices engage here. Physicists submit to those channels specifically *for the purpose* of engaging those quality control devices. Wolfram, on the other hand, had several reasons why he thought it was preferable not to do so for his work. You have to make the same judgment. > > >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. I disagree. There are a number of papers that call SR into question that are published annually. So then you have to ask yourself the question what the difference is. > > 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. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would propose that the full text of your article (not the cover letter) be posted for review, despite your concerns for piracy. See below. The above neither serves as an adequate presentation of the viability of absolute synchronization or allows for a cogent response to your ideas. > > 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. A journal editor is not obligated to provide you with a rebuttal or even an explanation of what's wrong with the paper. The only response that's typically provided is a decision to not publish or a provisional decision to publish. If the latter, *then* there are typically comments from commissioned reviewers that need to be addressed in order to make the article suitable for publication -- but this only happens if the paper is considered close to being ready. If it is deemed not close to being ready, then you are not owed an explanation as to why. Sorry, that's reality. > > >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! This is a false fear. Papers are not submitted or reviewed in secret. A great example is arXive.org, where papers are exposed to public view BEFORE being accepted for publication. Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a copyright notice, then your article is protected by law. Think about it. Reviewers at peer-reviewed journals are just that --- peers. As such, they could very well reject a paper and then turn around and write and submit an identical one. This does not happen. Now ask yourself why that's so. I'm sorry, your excuses are not very compelling. PD
From: Strich.9 on 23 Dec 2008 14:48 On Dec 23, 2:28 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote in message > > 76d2l498scdtgbtf2phe48knv31rsm5...(a)4ax.com > > > > > > > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:05:16 -0800 (PST), > > PD <TheDraperFam...(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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There you go with your autism again. Politeness in scientific circles means being intellectually honest. Well, at least after you your gene pool is done :)
From: bjones on 23 Dec 2008 14:51 It doesn't take a superlative sleuth to see that Dear Dr. Dirk also has no rebuttal. Funny how he can label something "utter nonsense" even though he is utterly unable to refute it. (But that's assuming that he understood it!) All he has to do is to tell us why the sliding rod will not absolutely synchronize the clocks. /bjones/
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 14:54
On Dec 23, 1:46 pm, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 2:10 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > snip more whining... > > The editors owe it to science... No sir. They do not owe it to anyone. They are running a *business*. The fact that you think you are entitled to certain things doesn't mean that you are in fact entitled. But feel free to wwhhhhhiiiiiinnne. > But seeing they are a band of > priests, then you are right, they do not owe anybody anything... |