B Is the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics credible?

[houlahound]

Papers from this journal a being quoted by a guy that refutes relativity. I know right red flag, lots of pros here so I thought if someone would vouch for this journal it might save me time trying to critique the papers.

The editorial board has editors from all around the world, there credentials are not mentioned. Some at uni Colorado.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/

 

[SteamKing]

Papers from this journal a being quoted by a guy that refutes relativity. I know right red flag, lots of pros here so I thought if someone would vouch for this journal it might save me time trying to critique the papers.

The editorial board has editors from all around the world, there credentials are not mentioned. Some at uni Colorado.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/

What credentials are you looking for? If you click on the link "Editorial Board", you get the board member's academic or professional affiliation. If you want an individual's CV, you'll probably have to do some additional research.

 

[ZapperZ]

Papers from this journal a being quoted by a guy that refutes relativity. I know right red flag, lots of pros here so I thought if someone would vouch for this journal it might save me time trying to critique the papers.

The editorial board has editors from all around the world, there credentials are not mentioned. Some at uni Colorado.

http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-atmospheric-and-solar-terrestrial-physics/

There are many legitimate sources that are often used in crackpottery, simply because the person who used it either do not understand what they are citing, simply picked and chose what they wish to believe, or is utterly nuts. We continue to see anti-evolution websites citing Thermo's 2nd law (a legitimate concept) as "evidence" that evolution cannot occur.

Here's the deal. If there ARE experimental evidence that SR is wrong,, it would have been published in Nature, Science, PRL, etc... after all, where did you think the initial OPERA "faster-than-light-neutrinos" were published?

Zz.

 

[houlahound]

I don't believe this source is legit, I am not a pro so thought I would get a more informed opinion.

The paper splits photons into their positive and negative charges.

The journal appears to my amateur mind as completely dishonest and bogus, I thought it was a Poe.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't believe this source is legit, I am not a pro so thought I would get a more informed opinion.

The paper splits photons into their positive and negative charges.

The journal appears to my amateur mind as completely dishonest and bogus, I thought it was a Poe.

WHAT?

Check your link! All you gave was the main page of the journal. You didn't provide ANY citation to a specific paper! So what paper are you referring to that ".. splits photons into their positive and negative charges..."?

Zz.

 

[SteamKing]

I don't believe this source is legit, I am not a pro so thought I would get a more informed opinion.

The paper splits photons into their positive and negative charges.

The journal appears to my amateur mind as completely dishonest and bogus, I thought it was a Poe.

It's not clear to which paper you are referring.

Elsevier is a reputable academic publisher with an international business. I don't believe they could stay in that business very long if their journals were no better than picking up a copy of the "World Weekly News" at the supermarket checkout.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What is the paper? And was it really published in that journal? Elsevier has a good reputation for scientific content.

 

[houlahound]

Cited paper

http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0127v1.pdf

 

[houlahound]

The site was started because editors if a scientific site would not publish papers by anyone just because they submitted them.

Here is the why behind the journalhttp://vixra.org/why

 

[ZapperZ]

Cited paper

First of all, this is not a "paper". A paper means that it is published in a scientific journal.

Secondly, you don't seem to have understood my response to your post. I said that CITED SOURCE can be legitimate, even when it is cited for the WRONG REASON by some crackpots! You should really learn how to read and analyze thing. You complain and dismiss the Elsevier journal because it was used as a source by this joker. Yet, you pay WAAAAAY too much attention and wasting time with this particular vixra garbage! What gives?

And don't you have anything better to do than trolling stuff on vixra?

This is an utter waste of time.

Zz.

 

[SteamKing]

Cited paper

http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0127v1.pdf

You still haven't shown where this paper was published in the Elsevier journal you originally linked to.

 

[PeterDonis]

The only specific paper cited in this thread is not a legitimate source. The journal itself is fine, but that doesn't mean everyone who reads a paper in it interprets it correctly. Also, the specific paper cited does not appear to have been published in that journal, although the paper's author has published another paper in that journal. Thread closed.

 

[Evo]

Just to be clear, Elsevier is fine, Vixra is not.