Peer Review

[Guest254]

If I'm told in advance the work isn't wanted and won't be considered, I'd be foolish to bother submitting it. That's perfectly reasonable. Your position is unreasonable. Mine is a repeatable experiment, yours is not. But like I said, of course it's sour grapes on my part. That's how the system proves anyone is a crackpot regardless of the content of their work. Then they can keep getting that grant money from taxpayers for their superfluous activities.

No, what you've done is sent an e-mail to a journal (or journals), and you've interpreted whatever reply you got. Given your performance on this message board, I'm disinclined to trust your paraphrasing.

But let's look beyond that. What you were doing was trying to find reasons not to submit your work. You're trying to find reasons so that you can justify hiding beneath your psychological safety blanket. You want to believe what you've done is ground-breaking, but you're not confident enough to let the scientific community judge its merits. Again, this is what's brilliant about peer review - you don't get to judge the merits of your work.

 

[BertBonsai]

No, bowing is not necessary. But what IS necessary is that you acknowledge there are people here who have put in time and effort (in my case 7 years with virtually no income) in order to be able to speak authoritatively on the subject at hand; namely peer review.

You don't get credit for that here. All you've done here is state your opinion in the OP, then, 75 posts later, wade in to rudely abuse those whose opinion differs. This is a science discussion forum. You obviously didn't come here to discuss anything.

 

[BertBonsai]

No, what you've done is sent an e-mail to a journal (or journals), and you've interpreted whatever reply you got. Given your performance on this message board, I'm disinclined to trust your paraphrasing.

There was no reasonable way to misinterpret the responses to think they might consider such work regardless. They absolutely made it clear that they wouldn't read it.

But let's look beyond that. What you were doing was trying to find reasons not to submit your work. You're trying to find reasons so that you can justify hiding beneath your psychological safety blanket.

No, you're the one making excuses. All that stands between you and popping your fantasy is sending a few emails to major journals and asking them the question above. I've done my homework. You haven't. Of course, if you think that refuting a theory requires more than refuting it (by thought experiment), no response by the journals would be sufficient.

 

[BertBonsai]

If someone were purporting to have found an algebraic demonstration which showed GR basically said 2=1 then they need only produce that demonstration. You're not, you're giving an extremely wordy argument and thus its important you demonstrate you have a good grasp of the relevant concepts as well as being mathematically capable.

Since I haven’t made the argument on sciforums, how would you know it’s wordy or is more than showing that GR basically says 2=1? You assume a lot.

For instance, you claim to have solved a number of issues in cosmology which GR supposedly has. As such its entirely reasonable for anyone to ask you to clearly explain the relevant area of GR, explain your work's take on it, compare predictions and then discuss the implications.

GR doesn’t solve any of those issues; that’s why they’re current issues in cosmology. What’s reasonable is to consider anything that sheds light on those issues, period. A single new point made in a single paragraph should be sufficient to consider, if we lived in a scientific world.

And secondly you haven't demonstrated that, you've demonstrate your illogical nature and unwillingness to be scientific.

Just look above for example #50 at least. You think issues of cosmology are supposedly solved by GR, in which case they wouldn’t be issues. Your logic is sorely lacking.

I've explained the criteria I'd expect of someone making big claims and it basically boils down to "They should possess relevant knowledge, explain in detail their methodology, compare new ideas with the old ones and demonstrate their new work is experimentally viable.". What precisely about this is not scientific?

Pretty much all of it. Here’s what should be expected of someone making a refutation of a theory: validity. Period. No experiment need relate to a refutation, which makes this example #51 of your illogic.

Do you think its unscientific is someone says "I don't quite see how you got from X to Y, can you elaborate?".

No, of course not. But that’s a world apart from the criteria you gave above.

Work can be right but if the presentation is poor it'll be rejected or at least asked to be rewritten and then resubmitted.

Sure, but what does that have to do with anything I said? (No journal has seen my work; it was pre-rejected based on the subject. No work that purports to refute GR using only a thought experiment will be considered by a major journal, the editor(s) of the major journals told me.)

And I'm wondering if you're just desperate or just stupid for calling me unscientific and illogical. You started this thread claiming your work came to you in a dream! How much more illogical can you get?!

Hilarious again. I didn’t start this thread. Example #52. You cross-post a lot. Instead of writing huge diatribes, try posting less stuff in the correct thread.

You're arguing with at least 2 people who have both reviewed for journals and who have been reviewed by journals on a subject area both of them have a lot of experience and knowledge of and you're calling me illogical?!

Example #53. I’m illogical because I’m arguing with people of certain qualifications? Give me a break.

That’s all I have time for. You did engage in discussion more this time, instead of just call me a crank, I’ll give you that.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Since I haven’t made the argument on sciforums, how would you know it’s wordy or is more than showing that GR basically says 2=1? You assume a lot.

So you're saying the claims put forth in this thread aren't a sufficient argument for there being an issue with relativity?

As for whether or not I 'know' it to be wordy, you have demonstrated very little of the knowledge and understanding of the relevant mathematical areas, not demonstrated you know GR (you cling to an SR formulation desperately) and you are obviously very very naive about the scientific method and how worthy papers should be formulated. I've criticised you for being too light on details or explanations and given you've been unable to provide such things its fair to conclude you don't have them. Feel free to demonstrate me wrong by providing the full GR description of your claims over in said thread.

I'm not basing my comments on nothing, if you had the goods you'd provide them when asked not just whine about peer review. Its an attempt to change the subject so you can avoid facing up to the flaws and lack of merit in your claims.

GR doesn’t solve any of those issues; that’s why they’re current issues in cosmology. What’s reasonable is to consider anything that sheds light on those issues, period. A single new point made in a single paragraph should be sufficient to consider, if we lived in a scientific world.

This doesn't retort anything I said. I didn't say they weren't issues, I said if you're going to discuss issues in GR then you need to do an indepth analysis, you need to provide details.

Someone wanting to over turn any area of mainstream work which has lasted for a length of time will be claiming results which no one will have seen or derived in that length of time. As such they will have to explain how they obtained it because if its escaped the notice of a century of physicists then it'll be important to walk them through your work so as to help them understand. If a claim is valid then you should have a supporting argument/explanation and you should realise that you're going to have to explain to people who their thinking was wrong. If no explanation is provided people might not see how to get to your result. I personally find I get a lot more from a paper when an author explains things in detail, not just jumping from result to result without explaining the methodology.

Just look above for example #50 at least. You think issues of cosmology are supposedly solved by GR, in which case they wouldn’t be issues. Your logic is sorely lacking.

No, your grasp of what I said is lacking. I said "you claim to have solved a number of issues in cosmology which GR supposedly has", meaning you claim you've solved issues which exist within GR applied to cosmology. Cosmology is for the most part a particular application of GR, such things as inflation etc are due to the use of GR in modelling the universe. The application of GR to the universe at large pretty much is cosmology. You read the sentence as meaning they are two separate things and then you blame me because you couldn't take the time to think about it. Perhaps if you'd ever done cosmology you'd have not made such a mistake.

Pretty much all of it. Here’s what should be expected of someone making a refutation of a theory: validity. Period. No experiment need relate to a refutation, which makes this example #51 of your illogic.

*Sigh*. Despite having explained it to you many times you still fail to get it. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just thick? I've previously explained that any valid argument is, in general, enough. The question is what do you need for a valid argument for GR? Without experimental results you're going to be arguing about consistency and logic. GR's consistency and logic is based on that of Riemannian geometry, it is the application of Riemannian geometry to physics. If GR is self contradictory in meaningful physical descriptions then it means Riemannian geometry is flawed so if Riemannian geometry (or at least the part which GR makes use of) is not possessing a contradiction then the mathematical (aka logical) structure of GR isn't either.

Guest and I have both commented how you paraphrase people to the point of saying something utterly different and you've done it again. Yes, a thought experiment is enough but the issue is whether one exists or whether one has been excluded by other work.

No, of course not. But that’s a world apart from the criteria you gave above.

Not really, you only wish it is so you can continue making excuses about how you won't put your work up for peer review. For something like string theory if someone can come up with a thought experiment which demonstrates it consistent then I'd accept that. If someone came up with an anomaly in the Standard Model via some quantum field theoretic work then I'd accept it. That's because there's areas in QFT which skim close to providing clear contradictions, any field theory with an anomaly is inconsistent.

But what about GR? The bread and butter stuff of GR (including the entirety of SR) is well established, formalised and consistent and even if it weren't its application to everyday life is demonstrably good enough to be worth knowing. At its very edges, far from anything any hack like yourself would have read about and understood, GR is effectively highly abstract differential geometry and a huge area of research. Someone demonstrating that there's a logical flaw in the physical application of GR out there would only need a thought experiment, its basically entirely mathematics. It would mean GR isn't a fundamental model but an effective theory but we already know that since it can't be easily quantised and it has no bearing on the demonstrable fact GR is applicable in everyday life.

Your naivety as to the scientific method and the interplay between maths and physics (not to mention the axe you have to grind) means you fail to understand what is being explained to you. The mathematical consistency of your basic GR is known to be true so any simple thought experiment involving rockets going around stars or trains going past stations with its lights on will fail to demonstrate a contradiction. I'm not going unscientific or illogical, I'm just being over your head.

Hilarious again. I didn’t start this thread. Example #52. You cross-post a lot. Instead of writing huge diatribes, try posting less stuff in the correct thread.

I forgot to include a link to your thread about getting physics in your dreams. You know full well I was referring to that but you just had to throw an insult in rather than actually think. My point remains, you're claiming physics came to you in a dream and yet you're calling me illogical?

Example #53. I’m illogical because I’m arguing with people of certain qualifications? Give me a break.

No, you're illogical for ignoring any and all comments, advice, criticisms or corrections from anyone, even those who have experience in areas you do not (like peer review and publishing work). Once again you paraphrase me to the point of lying and yet you have the hypocrisy to make a pretend list of my illogical posts.

Its logical and rational to think that people who have experience of research, publications and peer review within physics might have relevant comments or might spot where you, someone who has none of those experiences, might be mistaken. The fact you continue to tell Guest and I the nature of peer review when we both have reviewed and been reviewed and you have neither is illogical and irrational. I'm not saying you must accept our words as gospel but rather you should entertain the notion you might be wrong on something.

And you can make all the lists you like of things in my posts and whine all you like, the fact remains that you fail to meet any criteria required for your work to be published, regardless of whether journals are biased against work arguing against GR, and you'll stay that way given the mentality you have. At the end of the day you'll get nowhere and you'll meld back into the crowd of hacks online.

 

[BertBonsai]

So you're saying the claims put forth in this thread aren't a sufficient argument for there being an issue with relativity?

Nothing in that thread purports to directly show that GR is refuted. Or SR, for that matter.

No, your grasp of what I said is lacking. I said "you claim to have solved a number of issues in cosmology which GR supposedly has", meaning you claim you've solved issues which exist within GR applied to cosmology.

OK. The first way can be misconstrued as "has solved".

GR's consistency and logic is based on that of Riemannian geometry, it is the application of Riemannian geometry to physics. If GR is self contradictory in meaningful physical descriptions then it means Riemannian geometry is flawed so if Riemannian geometry (or at least the part which GR makes use of) is not possessing a contradiction then the mathematical (aka logical) structure of GR isn't either.

That's a mistake in logic that has been pointed out to you before, and you ignored it. GR is not just geometry; it's also postulates, with which it must be consistent to be valid.

Yes, a thought experiment is enough but the issue is whether one exists or whether one has been excluded by other work.

A thought experiment is not enough for a major journal, which is my point. My point is made, the journals disagree with you, and your other points about my work are irrelevant to that.

The mathematical consistency of your basic GR is known to be true so any simple thought experiment involving rockets going around stars or trains going past stations with its lights on will fail to demonstrate a contradiction. I'm not going unscientific or illogical, I'm just being over your head.

You are indeed being illogical there, because GR is in fact not known to be fully self-consistent, when including its postulates. There's no proof of that.

At the end of the day you'll get nowhere and you'll meld back into the crowd of hacks online.

Which would prove nothing about my work, since major journals aren't fully scientific.

 

[funkstar]

A thought experiment is not enough for a major journal, which is my point. My point is made, the journals disagree with you...

First of all, we have only your word for that. Since you're unwilling to reproduce your exchanges with the editors (you could ask for permission, you know), or even disclose the journals in question, saying "the journals disagree with you" really doesn't carry the weight you seem to think it does.

Second, even assuming that the journals are unlikely to consider your paper, there's still tremendous value in writing it up and submitting it anyway. Most importantly, it forces you to present your argument in a formal and concise way. I find that the writing up phase almost always leads you to find weak points in your arguments, and/or gives you new things to explore.

Third, unless your paper is obvious rubbish (which is certainly a possibility), you could get very valuable feedback, even if it comes in the form of an editor rejection. Should you get through to the refereeing, even more so. Peer review is a really good deal for you - you get to have experts closely read and comment on your work for free. Where else do you get that kind of service?

So you see, there's really very little to lose by submitting your work to peer review. For these reasons I'm inclined to believe that you're simply looking for reasons to believe that your work is great without having to submit it to the scrutiny of experts.

 

[BertBonsai]

First of all, we have only your word for that. Since you're unwilling to reproduce your exchanges with the editors (you could ask for permission, you know), or even disclose the journals in question, saying "the journals disagree with you" really doesn't carry the weight you seem to think it does.

It's an experiment that's repeatable by anyone. My data (those exchanges) could always be disbelieved since I could make them up, so they're worthless.

Second, even assuming that the journals are unlikely to consider your paper, there's still tremendous value in writing it up and submitting it anyway. Most importantly, it forces you to present your argument in a formal and concise way.

The paper is written. But there's no value in submitting it to disinterested parties.

Third, unless your paper is obvious rubbish (which is certainly a possibility), you could get very valuable feedback, even if it comes in the form of an editor rejection.

A rejection that basically says "Mr. Crackpot, we won't consider a paper with this subject, for the same [unscientific] reason we told you before" has no additional value to me.

So you see, there's really very little to lose by submitting your work to peer review. For these reasons I'm inclined to believe that you're simply looking for reasons to believe that your work is great without having to submit it to the scrutiny of experts.

I don't show up at a restaurant after they've told me it's closed, for the same reason--it's a waste of time & effort. Believe what you want. Since you won't take 5 minutes to ask even one journal yourself, I'm inclined to believe that you simply don't want to know that the "refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy", as Tipler claims. You don't want your bubble popped.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The paper is written. But there's no value in submitting it to disinterested parties
.....
I don't show up at a restaurant after they've told me it's closed, for the same reason--it's a waste of time & effort.

Except the effort is in doing the work and writing the paper. Which you claim you've done. The 'effort' of getting to the restaurant (to use your analogy) is nothing more than firing off a few emails. To use your analogy you've spent considerable time getting dressed up for dinner, told everyone you're going to dinner, spent time and effort getting to the front door but now you won't walk through it.

You can't simultaneously say "I've written the paper" and "I'm not going to waste my time". Speaking from experience it takes much much much longer to write a paper than it does to email it to a journal. Your refusal to do the very very last bit of effort is simply you making up excuses.

I'll reply to your reply to me when I get home from work this evening.

 

[BertBonsai]

My point remains, you're claiming physics came to you in a dream and yet you're calling me illogical?

Missed this one among the junk. The shape of the benzene molecule was the result of a dream. Was its discoverer illogical? Of course you won't answer! You ignored the sewing machine example too.

 

[BertBonsai]

The 'effort' of getting to the restaurant (to use your analogy) is nothing more than firing off a few emails. To use your analogy you've spent considerable time getting dressed up for dinner, told everyone you're going to dinner, spent time and effort getting to the front door but now you won't walk through it.

I got dressed and called the restaurant to confirm they're open. They told me they're open but they absolutely won't serve me.

You can't simultaneously say "I've written the paper" and "I'm not going to waste my time". Speaking from experience it takes much much much longer to write a paper than it does to email it to a journal. Your refusal to do the very very last bit of effort is simply you making up excuses.

They told me to not bother sending a paper with such subject. They definitely won't read it, they said in no uncertain terms. So no excuse was made on my part. I did all the appropriate work and research.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Nothing in that thread purports to directly show that GR is refuted. Or SR, for that matter.

You certainly claim to disagree with relativity, saying you've solved problems it hasn't.

That's a mistake in logic that has been pointed out to you before, and you ignored it. GR is not just geometry; it's also postulates, with which it must be consistent to be valid.

You again fail to understand. The mathematical consistency of GR is the same as geometry, likewise for SR. A thought experiment is to ask the quantitative model what it implies. If the model is not inconsistent it'll provide a meaningful answer. Hence a thought experiment is only going to kill something which is mathematically viable if the thought experiment pertains to an experimental observation already done and which contradicts said thought experiment's prediction. If you stay entirely within the realms of thought experiments you're saying within the realm of asking about mathematical consistency.

A mathematical framework for a model is obtained by converting a set of physical postulates into formal logic and then working out their implications. If the mathematical implications are inconsistent then the postulates are incompatible with one another. The mathematical implications not contradicting one another imply the postulates don't. A thought experiment will only explore that structure, in order to see if the postulates you've picked are physically valid (or viable) you have to do experiments or compared predictions with already done experiments.

Are you presenting experimental results with your claims? Or are you just sticking with thought experiments? You don't investigate the physical viability of a set of compatible postulates unless you do experiments or compare with experiments. Everything else is issues of logic and consistency.

This point seems lost on you and its a point the replies from journals have likely made. Armed with only a thought experiment and not an iota of experimental data you're not going to be doing anything other than the mathematical structure of GR, which is already well established and examined by physicists and mathematicians (and mathematicians don't give a stuff if the physical validity is wrong, the mathematical structure can be left intact).

A thought experiment is not enough for a major journal, which is my point. My point is made, the journals disagree with you, and your other points about my work are irrelevant to that.

You clearly fail to understand the point journals and I have been trying to make.

You are indeed being illogical there, because GR is in fact not known to be fully self-consistent, when including its postulates. There's no proof of that.

Mathematical consistency and physical validity are two seperate things. Physically valid -> Mathematical consistency. No mathematical consistency -> No physical validity, the usual $$(A \Rightarrow B) \Rightarrow ( \neg B \Rightarrow \neg A)$$. And besides, proving consistency is separate from proving postulates/axioms. Axioms and postulates are assumed and the issue of consistency is whether the implications are inconsistent.

Which would prove nothing about my work, since major journals aren't fully scientific.

You're not exactly a shining example of intellectual honesty and scientific methodology. You posted your work here to get attention and despite your claims you're sure you're right you refuse to put it to the test with people whose abilities and knowledge you can't dismiss as easily as you do mine. That suggests you know you're full of it but you can't admit it.

The shape of the benzene molecule was the result of a dream. Was its discoverer illogical? Of course you won't answer! You ignored the sewing machine example too.

I imagine the person who had that dream worked in organic chemistry and had loads of experimental experience and could immediately test his ideas and demonstrate them valid. He didn't spontaneously generate information, only realise something small. I've had experiences where I'll suddenly realise the solution to a problem I've been stuck on, often when I'm not working. I got out of bed because I realised how to do a mathematical problem once. But the mathematics didn't spontaneously appear in my dream, I already had the knowledge in my head and I just realised how some of it fitted together. I'd wager the same happened in the case of Benzene. You're making claims about solving issues in relativity and given you haven't done any relativity it would seem you think the knowledge simply spontaneously appeared in your head, ala divine revelation.

I got dressed and called the restaurant to confirm they're open. They told me they're open but they absolutely won't serve me.

They will, they just have a "No shirt? No shoes? No service!" policy. The restaurant has a good reputation because of high standards and if you want to eat there you shouldn't be surprised if they ask you to meet the same standards expected of their other customers. If they let anyone in, regardless of their dressing style no one would want to eat at the restaurant any more.

I did all the appropriate work and research.

No, you didn't. I outlined the level of standard I'd expect and which I imagine plenty of other people who have reviewed for journals might expect. You failed to meet it. Plenty of other people manage it.

Cranks often want to be seen as doing science, because its associated with intellectual ability but they fail to realise the reason its seen in a good light is because of the standards. Plenty of scientists (and doctors) wear white coats and cranks put on a white coat, expecting to be taken seriously. They fail to realise its not the white coat but the work scientists do while wearing the coats which is the source of the regard they are generally held in. They (you) are the science version of a cargo cult. You do all the superficial things which are associated to science but not the work and then wonder why you're not taken seriously.

 

[BertBonsai]

You certainly claim to disagree with relativity, saying you've solved problems it hasn't.

Geez, the illogic never stops. I don't have time to respond to a continuous dump of this stuff. Solving problems in cosmology need not refute relativity. Maybe relativity itself could be used to solve such problems? Like I did in that thread. I might get to more of your post, but maybe not since you included your usual ad hom spew.

 

[BertBonsai]

A mathematical framework for a model is obtained by converting a set of physical postulates into formal logic and then working out their implications. If the mathematical implications are inconsistent then the postulates are incompatible with one another. The mathematical implications not contradicting one another imply the postulates don't.

Yet this doesn't show that GR is consistent with its postulates; no proof of that exists. Let's recall what you said before:

The mathematical consistency of your basic GR is known to be true so any simple thought experiment involving rockets going around stars or trains going past stations with its lights on will fail to demonstrate a contradiction. I'm not going unscientific or illogical, I'm just being over your head.

Show that GR is consistent with its postulates. You're only assuming it to be true, which is unscientific. Major journals make similar unscientific assumptions, I've found.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I don't have time to respond to a continuous dump of this stuff.

Too busy not being intellectually honest eh?

Solving problems in cosmology need not refute relativity.

I didn't say it would. That's why people doing cosmology use a lot of GR, they explore previously unexplored regions or applications of GR trying to find something which applies to cosmology.

You're claiming results which aren't part of relativity, GR says something else. As such if your results match observations then you'd falsify relativity.

Rather than just doing a copy and paste of "That's illogical" try to think a little.

Maybe relativity itself could be used to solve such problems? Like I did in that thread.

You've yet to justify your claim you have solved it, your initial arguments have been retorted. Of course if you don't expect the retorts of people like myself or CptBork because we're still at 'student level' find some professors and show them.

But you're refusing to do that because of some conspiracy theory about journals.

I might get to more of your post, but maybe not since you included your usual ad hom spew.

That's rich coming from you, referring to yourself as a teacher and myself as a student. That's not an ad hom at all .

Yet this doesn't show that GR is consistent with its postulates; no proof of that exists.

What you mean is that it doesn't show that the postulates of GR are consistent, there's no distinction between the logical construct of the postulates of GR and GR itself, GR is the implications of the postulates. As with anything.

Show that GR is consistent with its postulates. You're only assuming it to be true, which is unscientific.

The mathematical structure applied to all but the most bleeding edge abstract GR is built up and proven from the axioms of geometry etc. Yes, there's no proof the entire structure which follows from the axioms relevant to differential geometry is consistent but that isn't what I said. I said that the mathematics employed in GR is well studied, for more than a century (including long before GR was devised) and all methods proven to follow from the axioms, no mathematical method or result used in GR is assumed to follow from axioms, its specifically demonstrated. That isn't unscientific, as all science, mathematics, logic etc all are built on axioms and postulates. Everything starts somewhere, a set of statements which are then developed. To even obtain implications of statements you have to assume logical premises. For instance, if B is true when A is true and C is true when B is true then in order to obtain the result that C is true when A is true you have to assume logic. And this is something a huge number of mathematicians work on, working on such a fundamental level. The fundamental premises of logic involve things like "A is 'A' and is not 'not A' ", aka $$A \Rightarrow A \not\Rightarrow \neg A$$. Is it unscientific to assume such things are valid?

Besides, your 'work' has assumptions and you make big assumptions which both I and CptBork have explained, such as your blind application of rocket equations in place of gravitational equations. You assumed you could do that and both I and CptBork have explained why you can't. You failed to grasp even simple logic and physics in that example so your demand I provide serious amounts of logic and mathematics in an attempt to prove the consistency of GR is utterly vacuous, you wouldn't understand it and thus would dismiss it. Just like you don't understand what we've been tell you so you dismiss us.

Besides, you contradict yourself. Your 'work' used mathematics, simple bits of calculus, which cannot be proven to be 100% consistent. If you use any logic or mathematics in any argument then you're assuming the fundamental axioms of mathematics and logic. So by your own criteria you're being unscientific.

Checkmate.

Major journals make similar unscientific assumptions, I've found.

You keep trying to pretend you've got more experience with journals than people like myself and Guest, that you've got more of an insight and understanding of the peer review process in research communities. Your comments in this thread demonstrate you don't understand peer review, or at the very least you twist what people have said to you in order to convince yourself of your preconceptions. More than once I've explained to you how you misunderstand various positions and replies of journals but obviously your attention span is too short to grasp them and you just continue lying.

 

[Acitnoids]

First off, as un-assuring as the OP was I must say that Quark Head has impressed me with his insightful posting and I hope he doesn't take offence if I resist commenting on his OP. Secondly,

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I think it might not be a bad idea to have some semblance of an FAQ in regards to the scientific method, the place peer review has in it and what one whould be expected to do in order to have any chance of passing peer review (...).

This is a great idea. I too started a thread about the peer review process and needless to say, it didn't gain much traction. I was looking for a templet of sorts so that I could organize my ideas into a publishable format. I've never attempted this before and so it's a little more than intimidating. I know how to submit a patent application because I know how to format my idea based on the products application. This is not the case with academia. I recognize that specific formats depend on the publication/subject matter. This is why I am in favor of a sticky thread or subforum where members could submit there ideas for a 'mock peer review' (in the context of a discussion board). It should be a strict venue where 'working members' could judge an individual idea based on its own merit. This has the potential to help any outsider find an appropriate journal to submit there ideas as well as give them the opportunity to smooth out their presentation. Granted, it's no substitute for getting your work published in a reputable scientific journal but it could be a valuable learning tool. Of course there will always be those who will cry foul even when two or more 'working members' tell them that their work is flawed or unclear and so a well formatted addition to the FAQ resource may be best. Personally, I'm interested to see how the process works before I jump in head first. All I have to go on right now is hear-say.

 

[Acitnoids]

In addition.
My main concern is this. Do I have to use proper jargon? I was always told that if I define what 'x' stands for (in my equations) then it doesn't matter what symbol I use. For example. If I define 'x' as being equal to the Planck constant, will they reject me just because I didn't use the symbol 'h'?

 

[prometheus]

In addition.
My main concern is this. Do I have to use proper jargon? I was always told that if I define what 'x' stands for (in my equations) then it doesn't matter what symbol I use. For example. If I define 'x' as being equal to the Planck constant, will they reject me just because I didn't use the symbol 'h'?

If your paper is a good one, most likely the reviewer will suggest changing your x to h, and recommend publishing it. There are lots of places in physics where one quantity has more than one symbol, often favoured by different people and it can get pretty confusing. Planck's constant is not one of them however, and the question you'd probably get asked is "why would you want to call it x?" All that's going to do for you is make the readers of your paper want to kill you for using such confusing notation.

Small note; mathematical symbols are not jargon.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by prometheus
If your papet is a good one, most likely the reviewer will suggest changing your x to h, and recommend publishing it. There are lots of places in physics where one quantity has more than one symbol, often favored by different people and it can get pretty confusing. Planck's constant is not one of them however, and the question you'd probably get asked is "why would you want to call it x"? All that's going to do for you is make the readers of your paper want to kill you for using such a confusing notation.
.
Small note; mathematical symbols are not jargon.

I wouldn't want to piss off the natives now would I. In truth, I have no reason to change h to x when describing Planck's constant. I figured that such an extreme would better make my point. The reasons I have for changing any symbol is far more specific. Aaa fuck it. I have nothing better to do so here's a more specific example. I use a symbol that I depict as uA1(Hz). This represents a real number which is derived, in part, by the size of our Hubble Volume at a specified moment in time. This single number holds multiple physical values including Planck's constant but in order to derive any of these values one must first decide on the unit they wish to express said value. For example. uA1(Hz) / uA1(eV) = h as does uA1(Hz) / uA1(J). In other words, Planck's constant is automatically applied to my equations in the context that I'm discussing here. This brings me to the jargon. I could describe this system as a way to normalize the individual units or I could describe it as a naturalized unit system. Both are correct from my POV.
.
NOTE: uA1 has nothing to do with finding the W & Z bosons. This is pure coincidence. uA1 represents a natural quantity of the universe.

 

[Acitnoids]

At present I'm very interested in this topic and so, if I can, I'd like to prod a little more oke: .
.
Being that this is the pseudo forum, I feel as if I can open up a bit. That being said, I don't consider what I'm working on to be pseudoscience. In addition to my previous post I'd like to add that uA1(Hz) is one of many 'base numbers'. Once a unit is normalized through this system it can be placed in relation to all the other 'uAs'. Personally, I like to arrange each uA in order from the smallest number (<0) to the largest number (>1). I've even made a grid that depicts this continuum. Granted, the one I written out only consists of eight uAs (well nine really but eV equals the same notation as J) and when put into ascending order they look like this (I'm using SI notation for my own convenience)
.
Hz, h-bar, 1/m, K, T, V, eV, J, Kg
.
My grid depicts these symbols across the top (left to right) and along the side (top to bottom). When filling out each block within the grid (uA1(X) / uA1(Y) = Y), the first thing you'll notice is the natural inverse per portions between the blocks moving across the top and those moving from top to bottom. Because of this I chose to depict the maths as moving from the top to the bottom. Sense I've already mentioned uA1(Hz), I'll use it as an example.
.
uA1(Hz) / uA1(Y) = Y
From Top to Bottom
1,
2pi,
c,
1/B,
1/uB,
h/2,
h,
h,
Base Compton Wave / c
From Left to Right
1, 1/(2pi), c, B, uB, 2/h, 1/h, 1/h, c / Base Compton Wave
.
Where c = speed the light, B = Boltzmann constant, uB = Bohr Magneton, h = Planck's constant and the Base Compton Wave = 2.2102187e-41 Kg m^-1
.
So now I'll ask. If you saw this concept in a paper that you were asked to review for publication, would it spark your interest?
.
NOTE: There are other uAs that can be added to this grid such as the atomic units, the Rydberg constant, the nuclear magneton, gyromags, mag moms, fundemental rest masses and many more.