In article ,
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line". Luckily there are lots of journals, some more tolerant
of novelty than others.

An interesting example, I think, is an article published by Van Flandern,
"The speed of gravity -- What the experiments say", Phys Lett A 250, 1-11
(1998). Van Flandern argues from data that the speed of gravity must be
at least 2e10 c to avoid noticeable decays of orbits and transverse
acceleration of the Earth. Carlip replies, "Aberration and the speed of
gravity", Phys Lett A 267, 81-87 (2000), that Van Flandern would be right
if the forces were strictly central, but he showed by explicit
calculation that non-central forces in electromagnetism and then gravity
cause an acceleration that points towards the source's "extrapolated
position", and then argues on more general principles that it's a
necessary consequence of any Lorentz-covariant force.

Strictly speaking, the reviewers should have already known that, and
recognized Van Flandern's argument as not worth publishing. But because
they published it, I learned about an issue and got some insight that I
might not have come across otherwise. Maybe it was an exchange more
worthy of Am J Phys than Phys Lett A, but what the hell, I still got
something out of it.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
...
In article ,
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
"Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are
rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because
it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually
published." Freeman Dyson, Innovation in Physics.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert

I remember a quote that was something like "It doesn't get into
Fundamentals of Physics Letters unless it's wrong." Also a quote about
APS journals soon filling library shelves faster than the speed of light,
but not violating relativity since no information would be transmitted.

Gregory, Your reference to faster-than-light, non-luminal journals is
hilarious.

Maybe you're taking the quote more seriously than Dyson meant it.

I'm certain that Dyson meant his remark to be taken in a lighthearted
way but the question remains. How much of his statement is true? "Do
physicists understand their own peer-reviewed literature?"

We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we know for
a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as "highfalutin
pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we know that physicists
today aren't running amok, pretending that they understand everything
and successfully publishing incomprehensible gibberish on the remote
edge of decipherability and clarity?

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line".

I see no contradiction between the two claims and believe the first is
only exaggerated slightly.

Why can't both statements be true?

Luckily there are lots of journals, some more tolerant
of novelty than others.

Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

(Perfectly Innocent) wrote in message . com...
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message ...

Every quip like that has some grain of truth to it, I'm sure. But then we
have the interesting situation of some people saying journals will publish
anything the reviewers don't understand, while at the same time other
people are saying journals won't publish anything that doesn't look like
"the party line".

I see no contradiction between the two claims and believe the first is
only exaggerated slightly.

Why can't both statements be true?

You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

- Randy

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message ...
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
We've all read stuff in the "scientific literature" that we
know for a fact would have a much easier time qualifying as
"highfalutin pomposity" than "a clear exposition." How do we
know that physicists today aren't running amok, pretending
that they understand everything and successfully publishing
incomprehensible gibberish on the remote edge of decipherability
and clarity?

By learning the field. Then you can read papers with discernment.

Bob Kolker

I assume that the many postdocs and GR experts at the newsgroup
sci.physics.research have discernment. I've asked an extraordinarily
simple question of them regarding VSL relativity. It's obvious that
no one there has an answer and those that are just pretending to
understand the physics are totally clueless.

See VSL (Variable Speed of Light) Relativity at sci.physics.research.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=580

Eugene Shubert

Randy Poe wrote;
You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad really.

Thanks
Bill


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.520 / Virus Database: 318 - Release Date: 9/18/2003

In article ,
Bill Hobba wrote:
Randy Poe wrote;
You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad really.

Every once in a while I think about keeping a list of articles published
in the major journals that are at odds with "establishment" science.
They're certainly there, I come across them now and then, even published
in the last few years, but I've never tried to make any kind of
comprehensive search.

--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Randy Poe wrote;
You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad
really.

Thanks
Bill

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy of the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.

No doubt, elegant theories should be pursued,
in the search for subtle effects that can be
profitable applied for the advancement of mankind,
but as it is, G.R. is a waste of time and resources,
and is essentially, a means by which
modern day priests extract money from the general public,
and charlatans hide behind to pretend to be
privy to useful, esoteric knowledge
(As a means of stroking their egos, or impressing people.).

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:41:22 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Randy Poe wrote;
You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad
really.

Thanks
Bill

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy of the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.

No doubt, elegant theories should be pursued,
in the search for subtle effects that can be
profitable applied for the advancement of mankind,
but as it is, G.R. is a waste of time and resources,
and is essentially, a means by which
modern day priests extract money from the general public,
and charlatans hide behind to pretend to be
privy to useful, esoteric knowledge
(As a means of stroking their egos, or impressing people.).

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.

Any of your terrorist friends manage to come up with an objection to
GR that is: a) Not based on delusion alone, b) not completely wrong,
and c) not completely unable to be an objection to GR?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"David Evens" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 09:41:22 +0800, "Tom Potter"
wrote:
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
Randy Poe wrote;
You write an incomprehensible anti-relativity article. The
reviewers can't make head or tail of it. Which rule
applies?

You see the problem don't you? He does not believe that so it must be
a
conspiracy or the establishment are stupid or some such rubbish. The
problem is you will never convince someone like that otherwise. Sad
really.

Thanks
Bill

I suggest that the folks who object to General Relativity do so,
not because they believe
"that it must be a conspiracy of the establishment"
but because it is not a viable theory.

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.

The few applications that General Relativity models better than
more viable theories, do not require G.R. as the practical limits
of all but extremely tightly controlled experiments can be
modeled by more viable theories, and even the few cases where
G.R. makes for an elegant curve fit, the more viable theories
can be adapted to account for variations from the simpler
expressions of the theory.

No doubt, elegant theories should be pursued,
in the search for subtle effects that can be
profitable applied for the advancement of mankind,
but as it is, G.R. is a waste of time and resources,
and is essentially, a means by which
modern day priests extract money from the general public,
and charlatans hide behind to pretend to be
privy to useful, esoteric knowledge
(As a means of stroking their egos, or impressing people.).

To sum up,
rather than read the ego tripping, and insults
and the rationalizations of the people who defend G.R.
I'd like to see objections to my position
be expressed in viable, real world calculations such as
a spring mass system, a series-parallel circuit,
ionization potentials, etc.

Any of your terrorist friends manage to come up with an objection to
GR that is: a) Not based on delusion alone, b) not completely wrong,
and c) not completely unable to be an objection to GR?

I am pleased to see that Davy Evens
is unable to find fault with my assessment of G.R.
and that he is only left with ad hominem as a response.

Hopefully, there will be others
who are intelligent enough to discuss
this issue in an intelligent, mature, rational way.

--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us

Tom Potter wrote:

As can be seen by the debates on and about General Relativity,
and the amount of the taxpayers money that is spent on
education, seminars, publications, supporting G.R. experts, etc.
and the lack of useful applications for it,
General Relativity consumes more time and resources
to support, than it returns in terms of productivity.


So if it can't be applied, the theory shouldn't be studied?

And tell me, how does one spend money to "support" a theory. Most work
being done on GR is trying to find a situation in which it does not
apply, ie. trying to _disprove_ or improve it. Until that is done
sucessfully, scientists will continue to apply it to make sense of our
universe and it will continue to be taught.

For example, I challenge Bill
to post how G.R. would model a mass spring system,
model a simple series-parallel resistance circuit,
or compute the ionization potentials of a few simple atoms.



How's this: general relativity is used in GPS systems to compensate
for the small delay in time due to the change of the earth's
gravitational field between the ground and the satellite. GPS
measurements are so fine that this correction becomes significant.