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: PD on 24 Dec 2008 13:44 On Dec 24, 12:25 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~see my other message for combo-reply > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(to eliminate this second branch) > > /bjones/ Which message is that?
From: bjones on 24 Dec 2008 14:16 On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:34:02 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Dec 24, 7:26 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: -snip- >> The more people involved, the better the protection. > >Sorry, but the institutional affiliation does not buy you involvement. -snip- Not "involvement," protection - against theft. The more people who can verify your authorship, the better. >> If I am instantly rejected (as soon as my real work is >> seen) in a mere newsgroup, then how easy will it be for >> me to get published in a legit journal? > >I understand your frustration, but this is an illustrative case. >Posters on this newsgroup do not display their institutional >affiliations. -snip- Yes, there were no affiliations involved, but the point I was trying to make was even without affiliations, I cannot even get "published" in a mere newsgroup once it is seen by them that it may be -- yikes! -- anti-SR. -snip- >> Well, I should not have to work around when it comes to >> a valid scientific discovery. > >I disagree completely. Valid scientific discoveries do not come with >any guarantee of visibility. Visibility is the product of hard work >and creative measures for *everyone*, though the measures are >different depending on your professional position. You may think this >is onerous, and it is, but it is not unfair. What I meant was this: No one who has a legit discovery should be summarily rejected from legit journals just because they are antiestablishment. But I realize of course that over 100 years of firm believe in SR can make for a pretty solid brick wall. -snip- >> This eliminates the web solution for me. > >I disagree. See below. Well, I looked below, but did not see it. ?? -snip- >That's correct. And how do you think that gets resolved? >How do you think it gets resolved when the initial public >release is in arXive.org and not by publication in a print journal? As I said, the more people involved, the better the protection. I am standalone; arXive folks are not. -snip- >So, given that you do not have the luxury of choice, what are you >willing to do to gain visibility and assert your priority to these >ideas? Well, that's why I am discussing the matter with you. (Over the years, I have discussed it with others.) Bear in mind my instant rejections from the two journals mainly because it was anti-SR, and partly because I an unaffiliated, and also bear in mind my recent stonewalling even by a newsgroup due to the fact that it was finally perceived as anti-SR. I am not well-versed in the ways and means of publication. I did join up with arXive a few years ago, but was waiting to perfect my presentation. Who can endorse me? Maybe Reg Cahill? The ends-and-outs tend to evade me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(switching to other branch~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (b jones wrote) >> That's easy - it's because mine is harder to refute. >> (See my other post to you re the stonewalling of my >> post in the moderated group.) > >Sorry, but you have no evidence to support that conclusion. That is a >purely self-serving rationalization. It is based on the premise that >if a post is easy to refute, then it will be refuted rather than >ignored. This is a false premise. Being ignored for a weak post is not >only completely common, but completely warranted. Let me put it this way: I have seen many folks talking forever to Seto because he never has anything solid, but as soon as they see that I do have something solid, the thread closes down. Remember, my first post to the moderated group went through easily, and even got a quick and detailed reply - it was only after it was seen that my second submitted message was too strong that I was stonewalled. (PD wrote re my credibility-proof example) >Then I think it's clear why it is ignored. Don't you? > No, that is why I asked you to fill in the blanks with your answer. >Perhaps the matter is simple. Rather than posing the matter as a >"proof" of absolute synchronization, why don't you instead ask what >the laws of physics say about the scenario below? It was *not* an absolute synchronization proof, but a proof that either moving rods can be used to absolutely synchronize clocks or relativity theory must admit that a rod physically contracts when moving through space, (Lorentz and I of course opt for the latter, not the former.) Since this little example disproves Einstein's belief that absolute motion is meaningless, it is anti-SR. >It may be that you just have a weak spot in understanding what >relativity says. Very often, the problem is a false dichotomy, >where it is believed that the only conceivable choices are (i) or (ii), >when in fact what's going on is (iii). Instead of talking about it, why not show it. Where is (iii) in the given experiment? Remember, you said that you would critique my absolute synchronization procedure if I put it on a web site, but how could you expect to do this when you cannot even properly critique my simple rod example? There is no Einstein synchronization in the rod example, so you cannot resort to using SR's math. It takes a lot of hard work to eliminate this math from an experiment, but so far no valid feedback for all my labor. /bjones/
From: PD on 24 Dec 2008 15:20
On Dec 24, 1:16 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 06:34:02 -0800 (PST),PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Dec 24, 7:26 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > -snip- > >> The more people involved, the better the protection. > > >Sorry, but the institutional affiliation does not buy you involvement. > > -snip- > > Not "involvement," protection - against theft. The more people who > can verify your authorship, the better. Forgive me, but from experience working in an academic physics department, the chair had no idea what my authorship was, let alone stand in to verify it before anyone. I think you have a misguided view of how universities work. > > >> If I am instantly rejected (as soon as my real work is > >> seen) in a mere newsgroup, then how easy will it be for > >> me to get published in a legit journal? > > >I understand your frustration, but this is an illustrative case. > >Posters on this newsgroup do not display their institutional > >affiliations. -snip- > > Yes, there were no affiliations involved, but the point I was > trying to make was even without affiliations, I cannot even > get "published" in a mere newsgroup once it is seen by them > that it may be -- yikes! -- anti-SR. Perhaps I'm confused about something, but there is nothing that can prevent you from publishing to an unmoderated newsgroup. You just do it, and it is recorded forever. You can even put a copyright notice and the time stamp of the post will establish your priority. Now, if you are looking for *endorsement* -- that is, a string of positive comments declaring you are onto something -- then that's an entirely different matter. If by publishing to a "legit journal", you think you achieve that endorsement tacitly, I'm afraid you are also in for a shock. Thousands of incorrect papers are published annually. > > -snip- > > >> Well, I should not have to work around when it comes to > >> a valid scientific discovery. > > >I disagree completely. Valid scientific discoveries do not come with > >any guarantee of visibility. Visibility is the product of hard work > >and creative measures for *everyone*, though the measures are > >different depending on your professional position. You may think this > >is onerous, and it is, but it is not unfair. > > What I meant was this: No one who has a legit discovery should > be summarily rejected from legit journals just because they are > antiestablishment. You don't seem to to be listening. Many papers that call relativity into question are published in legit journals annually. So let's recap, shall we? Excuse 1: "I can't get published in a legit journal because the content is anti-relativity." Papers that call relativity into question are published regularly. Excuse 2: "I can't get acknowledgment because I'm not affiliated with an academic institution." You don't get acknowledged even on a newsgroup, where affiliation is completely immaterial. Excuse 3: "I can't publish in a place other than a legit journal, because someone will steal the ideas." Authors publish in arXive.org or self-publish long before they appear in a legit journal (if they ever do), and somehow there isn't a clamping off by authors out of fear of theft of intellectual property. Do you have any other excuses that we haven't addressed? > But I realize of course that over 100 years of > firm believe in SR can make for a pretty solid brick wall. > > -snip- > > >> This eliminates the web solution for me. > > >I disagree. See below. > > Well, I looked below, but did not see it. ?? arXive.org is a web solution. There are many such. > > -snip- > > >That's correct. And how do you think that gets resolved? > >How do you think it gets resolved when the initial public > >release is in arXive.org and not by publication in a print journal? > > As I said, the more people involved, the better the protection. > I am standalone; arXive folks are not. Who do you think these "arXive folks" are? > > -snip- > > >So, given that you do not have the luxury of choice, what are you > >willing to do to gain visibility and assert your priority to these > >ideas? > > Well, that's why I am discussing the matter with you. (Over the > years, I have discussed it with others.) Bear in mind my instant > rejections from the two journals mainly because it was anti-SR, > and partly because I an unaffiliated, and also bear in mind my > recent stonewalling even by a newsgroup due to the fact that it > was finally perceived as anti-SR. > > I am not well-versed in the ways and means of publication. > I did join up with arXive a few years ago, but was waiting > to perfect my presentation. Who can endorse me? Maybe > Reg Cahill? The ends-and-outs tend to evade me. The ins-and-outs you need to bone up on. That burden is on you. No one is going to grease the skids for you, as I've already told you. Many authors have to submit a paper to a dozen journals before it gets accepted for publication by one. You gave up at two. You took being ignored on a newsgroup to be an act of suppression; that is an invention of your own head. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(switching to other branch~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > (b jones wrote) > > >> That's easy - it's because mine is harder to refute. > >> (See my other post to you re the stonewalling of my > >> post in the moderated group.) > > >Sorry, but you have no evidence to support that conclusion. That is a > >purely self-serving rationalization. It is based on the premise that > >if a post is easy to refute, then it will be refuted rather than > >ignored. This is a false premise. Being ignored for a weak post is not > >only completely common, but completely warranted. > > Let me put it this way: > I have seen many folks talking forever to Seto because he never > has anything solid, but as soon as they see that I do have something > solid, the thread closes down. I think you misjudge why Seto gets a response. Seto gets a response because people cannot believe that he says the things he says with a straight face. He gets a response because he is an unfortunate laughingstock, and people push him to see how ridiculous a statement he is prepared to make once he paints himself into a corner, and he does not disappoint. For example, he recently demonstrated that he does not know how to make an x-t plot, and considerable effort was spent by respondents to uncover that fact. Now, if you are saying to yourself, "Well, if Seto gets attention, then surely I should too, because my stuff is better," then I think you'd better reconsider exactly what you're asking for. > > Remember, my first post to the moderated group went through > easily, and even got a quick and detailed reply - it was only after > it was seen that my second submitted message was too strong > that I was stonewalled. > > (PD wrote re my credibility-proof example) > > >Then I think it's clear why it is ignored. Don't you? > > No, that is why I asked you to fill in the blanks with your > answer. More on this in a second. In a nutshell, let me just give you a quick word of advice. If you think that a cogent argument against relativity could be presented in a single paragraph and a single ascii sketch, don't you think it just the *eeensiest* bit unlikely that this stunning revelation would be first discovered by an interested amateur and not for a whole century? Seriously, what do you think the odds are of that happening? Don't you think something like this would have come at the hands of the dozens of physicists who first looked at Einstein's work with an incredulous and very critical eye, and that it would have been uncovered in the first six months after the publication? After all, Einstein had just told most of the physics community that they didn't know what they were talking about. Don't you think it got a good hard look? Doesn't it seem even the *slightest* bit more likely that there is something about relativity that you just aren't getting? > > >Perhaps the matter is simple. Rather than posing the matter as a > >"proof" of absolute synchronization, why don't you instead ask what > >the laws of physics say about the scenario below? > > It was *not* an absolute synchronization proof, but a proof > that either moving rods can be used to absolutely synchronize > clocks or relativity theory must admit that a rod physically > contracts when moving through space, (Lorentz and I of > course opt for the latter, not the former.) > > Since this little example disproves Einstein's belief that > absolute motion is meaningless, it is anti-SR. > > >It may be that you just have a weak spot in understanding what > >relativity says. Very often, the problem is a false dichotomy, > >where it is believed that the only conceivable choices are (i) or (ii), > >when in fact what's going on is (iii). > > Instead of talking about it, why not show it. > > Where is (iii) in the given experiment? > > Remember, you said that you would critique my absolute > synchronization procedure if I put it on a web site, but how > could you expect to do this when you cannot even properly > critique my simple rod example? Tell you what. Let's give this topic a fresh start. Suppose you start a new thread, with the proposed scenario in the setup. Then please follow the set up with your understanding of what relativity says about that set up. This may be followed by a question on your part: "Is my understanding of how relativity accounts for this correct?" If you do not know how relativity accounts for this, then pose that question as well. > > There is no Einstein synchronization in the rod example, so > you cannot resort to using SR's math. It takes a lot of hard > work to eliminate this math from an experiment, but so far > no valid feedback for all my labor. As I told you, you are not owed feedback for your labor. Your labor is expended by you at your own risk and by your own interest, whether you garner any attention for that labor or not. However, I will look for your new thread, and sometime during the holidays, I'll see if I can drill into what your basic misconception about relativity is, to try to clear it up for you. PD |