Register to reply

Theory Development

by ZapperZ
Tags: development, theory
Share this thread:
jma2001
#163
Jun29-05, 08:17 PM
PF Gold
jma2001's Avatar
P: 89
Quote Quote by Tom Mattson
I still fail to see how it is not a far more likely scenario that this neo-Einstein is not on usenet, or even on some vBulletin Forum, making his ideas known. Why wouldn't he be?
If the moderated Usenet groups do not allow unpublished papers to be discussed, that might explain why.
Tom Mattson
#164
Jun29-05, 08:28 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,534
Quote Quote by jma2001
If the moderated Usenet groups do not allow unpublished papers to be discussed, that might explain why.
Have you ever read usenet?

Thumb through the sci.* groups sometime. You'll find more non mainstream threads than you could possibly want to. Not being privvy to Zanket's conversation with the s.p.r mod, I don't know why his paper was rejected. What I do know is that right now, on the front page of s.p.r. is a thread entitled "New Physics Theory". Go check it out for yourself.
Zanket
#165
Jun29-05, 08:41 PM
P: 308
Quote Quote by jma2001
There is a link to a "freely available" copy of Smolin's article here, if you wanted to read it:
Thanks for the link! I'm reading it now. And thank you for your comments on my paper. Since I don’t want to discuss that here, I’ll email you my reply to your questions about it.
jma2001
#166
Jun29-05, 08:44 PM
PF Gold
jma2001's Avatar
P: 89
Quote Quote by Tom Mattson
Thumb through the sci.* groups sometime. You'll find more non mainstream threads than you could possibly want to. Not being privvy to Zanket's conversation with the s.p.r mod, I don't know why his paper was rejected. What I do know is that right now, on the front page of s.p.r. is a thread entitled "New Physics Theory". Go check it out for yourself.
Yes, and I don't know how that could have gotten through the moderation while Zanket's paper was rejected. That web site does read like an obvious crackpottery, here are a few excerpts:

"Physics took a wrong turn 100 years ago from which it never recovered. It was transformed from the physical to the mathematical, which are merely tools for making calculations. It can be portrayed as God's magic trick, where physicists are spectators too easily satisfied without discovering how the trick is accomplished ...

"This book, begun in 1999, is a work-in-progress dealing with an all-encompassing physics theory, generically termed as a "theory of everything." Proposed is a new model of the universe, called the gyroverse, which explains the most mysterious physics anomalies ..."

Perhaps the inconsistency in applying the rules is part of the frustration.

Look, I do not wish to take sides in this debate, I am merely a curious amateur who is genuinely interested to know whether there is anything of value in Zanket's paper. As I said, I am not qualified to evaluate it myself, but if you, or ZapperZ, or Doc Al, were to read it and conclude that it is flawed, I would accept your judgement and drop the subject. The fact that no one is willing to even read his paper is what bothers me.
ZapperZ
#167
Jun29-05, 08:45 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
Quote Quote by Zanket
Let’s see your actual examples. Tipler offers real examples too.
1. Count the number of physics journals today, and in 1905.

2. Count the number of journals that have single editor such as at Annalen... that have the same authority as in pre 1920.

3. (i) Podlketnov paper (ii) Fleishman and Pons cold fusion paper (yes, even THAT notorious paper got published!).

You think Tipler is lying in his examples of groundbreaking papers whose authors say they initially got rejected by peer-reviewed journals?
(i) You seem to think that there's something "special" about being rejected and (ii) that once rejected, that papers will NEVER ever get published. What will it take to get through your head that such a thing is VERY COMMON, even TODAY?! Please tell me. I've mentioned this 3, 4 times (even cited my OWN example with Science). They are ground breaking because .... horrors... they actually MADE it into peer-reviewed journals! What a concept!

You’ve made a tenuous link to the “abstract” thread. The sci.physics.research mod subsequently told me that he did not read my paper. It turns out that s.p.r. does not allow discussion of unpublished papers, even a link to one. On s.p.r., unpublished papers are automatically “overly speculative.” Believe it or not.
It is because all of this are just symptoms of the same disease! Sci.physics is open... send your overspeculative paper there, why don't you?

In all of this, not once have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, that your paper is at fault. If you use the SAME reasoning and lack of background check that you have shown on here, I find that more than just a possibility.

Zz.
Zanket
#168
Jun30-05, 03:17 PM
P: 308
As much as I like a debate (I recently found out that “zanket” means “quarrel” in German), I’ve spent too much time on this thread, and we're mostly entrenched it seems, so this will be my last post here. I’ll address some final points made and then y’all can have at it when I’m gone. I'll consider your responses, and thanks for the info and links so far.

I must have hit a nerve, because a point that is minor to me has been blown up to make it sound like I think the whole peer-review process is worthless, which isn’t so. My point of late has been that a process that summarily rejects papers merely for being novel or the author uncredentialed is suboptimal, because it may cause science to lose (or significantly defer) groundbreaking papers. I think that conclusion requires only common sense. To prove a chance of something happening does not require proving that it has actually happened; e.g. proving that a groundbreaking paper has been lost to science. I won’t concede on that.

The point has been made that the odds of such loss to science is nil, despite the roadblocks imposed by the current peer-review process, due to the sheer number of avenues in which papers can be discussed, and the openness of those avenues (e.g. gatekeepers have less unilateral power than in the past). That may be true, but it seems unlikely to me, and it works only for a one-hit-wonder neo-Einstein. It seems unlikely to me that any of the popular journals would be amenable to novel ideas, when even arXiv, a non-peer-reviewed repository, warns endorsers (required for new submitters) against endorsing novel ideas. If a groundbreaking idea is accepted by an open-minded but unpopular journal, say, what are the odds that the idea will eventually become generally accepted? I’d say small, but I could be wrong. Now, suppose this author has more ideas to share. Then they are wasting time struggling to become published in a noticeable way instead of working on the next idea or next level of the previous idea. I would not have wanted Einstein to spend from 1905 to 1910 trying to get special relativity published in a popular journal. That such a system is being vehemently upheld here is pretty amazing to me. From this discussion—especially from the vitriolic comments that I have overspeculated here—I now understand why groundbreaking papers are routinely rejected out of hand by the peer-reviewed journals.
ZapperZ
#169
Jun30-05, 03:27 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
ZapperZ's Avatar
P: 29,239
.. and with your parting shot, you again demonstrated your inability to comprehend what you said and how inconsistenly you apply your own rules. For example:

Quote Quote by Zanket
My point of late has been that a process that summarily rejects papers merely for being novel or the author uncredentialed is suboptimal, because it may cause science to lose (or significantly defer) groundbreaking papers. I think that conclusion requires only common sense. To prove a chance of something happening does not require proving that it has actually happened; e.g. proving that a groundbreaking paper has been lost to science. I won’t concede on that.
Yet, you then DISMISSED:

The point has been made that the odds of such loss to science is nil, despite the roadblocks imposed by the current peer-review process, due to the sheer number of avenues in which papers can be discussed, and the openness of those avenues (e.g. gatekeepers have less unilateral power than in the past). That may be true, but it seems unlikely to me, and it works only for a one-hit-wonder neo-Einstein.
So you ACCEPT as FACT one case where there is insignificant event (science losing "groundbraking papers", even when you can't produce any) but you dismiss ANOTHER insignificant event as not true (odds of such loss to science). So two insignificant events, but with different acceptance based on nothing but a matter of TASTES.

It would be appropriate that this is how it all ends.

Zz.
Moonbear
#170
Jun30-05, 03:53 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,271
Quote Quote by Zanket
My point of late has been that a process that summarily rejects papers merely for being novel or the author uncredentialed is suboptimal, because it may cause science to lose (or significantly defer) groundbreaking papers.
But the point you seem to be missing all along is that novelty is not just encouraged, but required for publishing in journals. The process does not summarily reject papers for being novel, it is more likely to summarily reject a paper for NOT being sufficiently novel. The more novel the finding, the more likely it is to get published and to get a more favorable review. However, a novel idea is not sufficient if it is not borne out by a solid experimental design and results that support the hypothesis.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Theory development Forum Feedback & Announcements 35
Theory Development General Physics 20
Theory development and string theory Forum Feedback & Announcements 1
Theory development General Physics 0