The Role of Open Forums in Scientific Research

[Andre]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just look into the literature ansd see if anybody did better.

 

[ZapperZ]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Just look into the literature ansd see if anybody did better.

Why don't you list ALL the literature in question that YOU have looked at?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

I did a VERY quick check and immediately found this:

"The chaotic obliquity of the planets", Laskar, J.; Robutel, P., Nature v.361, p.608 (1993).l

Abstract: Numerical study of the global stability of the spin-axis orientation (obliquity) of the planets against secular orbital perturbations shows that all of the terrestrial planets could have experienced large, chaotic variations in obliquity at some time in the past. The obliquity of Mars is still in a large chaotic region, ranging from 0 to 60 deg. Mercury and Venus have been stabilized by tidal dissipation, and the Earth may have been stabilized by capture of the moon. None of the obliquities of the terrestrial planets can therefore be considered as primordial.

Did you miss the phrase "Numerical study..."? And this is just ONE example!

Zz.

 

[Andre]

So it's all in the numbers. If you can't give numbers, you have failed regardless what. But numbers are useless when you fail to cross check what other hypotheses require. And of course that you found something that overarches everything like Popper likes to see is far inferior to presenting a numerical model.

Here is a list of references.

J. Laskar & P. Robutel The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature 361, 608 - 612 (1993);

REFERENCES

.Temperatures in a runaway greenhouse on the evolving Venus: implications for water loss, Andrew J. Watsona T. M. Donahue and W. R. Kuhn Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 68, Issue 1 , April 1984, Pages 1-6)

Phillips, R.J., and V.L. Hansen, Geological evolution of Venus: Rises, plains, plumes, and plateaus, Science, 279, 1492-1497, 1998.
Smith, D.E., M.T. Zuber, with R.J. Phillips, et al., Topography of the Northern Hemisphere of Mars from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter, Science, 279, 1686-1692, 1998.
Hauck II, S.A., R.J. Phillips, and M. Price, Venus: Crater distribution and plains resurfacing models, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 13,635-13,642, 1998.

**********
Andoyer, H., 1923. Cours de Me´canique Ce´leste. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Arkani-Hamed, J., Tokso¨z, M.N., 1984. Thermal evolution of Venus. Phys.
Earth Planet. Inter. 34, 232–250.
Avduevskii, V.S., Golovin, Iu.M., Zavelevich, F.S., Likhushin, V.Ia.,
Marov, M.Ia., Melnikov, D.A., Merson, Ia.I., Moshkin, B.E., Razin,
K.A., Chernoshchekov, L.I., 1976. Preliminary results of an investigation
of the light regime in the atmosphere and on the surface of Venus.
Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia 14, 735–742.
Busse, F.H., 1968. Steady fluid flow in a precessing spheroidal shell. J.
Fluid Mech. 33, 739–751.
Carpenter, R.L., 1964. Study of Venus by CW radar. Astron. J. 69, 2–11.
Carpenter, R.L., 1966. Study of Venus by CW radar—1964 results. Astron.
J. 71, 142–152.
Carpenter, R.L., 1970. A radar determination of the rotation of Venus.
Astron. J. 75, 61–66.
Chapman, S., Lindzen, R., 1970. Atmospheric Tides. Thermal and Gravitational.
Reidel, Dordrecht.
Colombo, G., 1965. Rotation period of the planet Mercury. Nature 208,
575–578.
Colombo, G., Shapiro, I.I., 1966. The rotation of the planet Mercury.
Astrophys. J. 145, 296–307.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2001. The four final rotation states of Venus.
Nature 411, 767–770.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2003a. Long-term evolution of the spin of
Venus. II. Numerical simulations. Icarus 163, 24–45.
Correia, A.C.M., Laskar, J., 2003b. Different tidal torques on a planet with
a dense atmosphere and consequences to the spin dynamics. Preprint.
Counselman, C.C., Shapiro, I.I., 1970. Spin–orbit resonance of Mercury.
Symp. Math. 3, 121–169.
Darwin, G.H., 1880. On the secular change in the elements of a satellite
revolving around a tidally distorted planet. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
London 171, 713–891.
Davies, M.E., Colvin, T.R., Rogers, P.G., Chodas, P.W., Sjogren, W.L.,
Akim, E.L., Stepaniants, V.A., Vlasova, Z.P., Zakharov, A.I., 1992.
The rotation period, direction of the north pole, and geodetic control
network of Venus. J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13141–13151.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., 1978. The rotation of Venus. Ph.D. thesis, California
Institute of Technology.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., 1980. Atmospheric tides and the rotation of Venus. II.
Spin evolution. Icarus 41, 18–35.
Dobrovolskis, A.R., Ingersoll, A.P., 1980. Atmospheric tides and the rotation
of Venus. I. Tidal theory and the balance of torques. Icarus 41,
1–17.
Gans, R.F., 1972. Viscosity of the Earth’s core. J. Geophys. Res. 77,
360–366.
Gold, T., Soter, S., 1969. Atmospheric tides and the resonant rotation of
Venus. Icarus 11, 356–366.
Goldreich, P., Peale, S.J., 1966. Spin orbit coupling in the Solar System.
Astron. J. 71, 425–438.
Goldreich, P., Peale, S.J., 1970. The obliquity of Venus. Astron. J. 75,
273–284.
Goldreich, P., Soter, S., 1966. Q in the Solar System. Icarus 5, 375–389.
Goldstein, R.M., 1964. Venus characteristics by Earth-based radar. Astron.
J. 69, 12–19.
Goldstein, S., 1965. Modern Developments in Fluid Mechanics. Dover,
New York.
Hart, M.H., 1978. The evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth. Icarus 33,
23–39.
Henrard, J., 1993. The adiabatic invariant in classical dynamics, in:
C.K.R.T. Jones, U. Kirchgraber, H.O. Walthers (Eds.), Dynamics Reported,
Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 117–235.
Herring, T.A., Gwinn, C.R., Shappiro, I.I., 1986. Geodesy by radio interferometry:
studies of the forced nutations of the Earth. I—Data analysis.
II—Interpretation. J. Geophys. Res. 91, 4755–4765.
22 A.C.M. Correia et al. / Icarus 163 (2003) 1–23
Hinderer, J., Legros, H., Pedotti, G., 1987. Atmospheric pressure torque
and axial rotation of Venus. Adv. Space Res. 7, 311–314.
Hunten, D.M., 1993. Atmospheric evolution of the terrestrial planets.
Science 259, 915–920.
Joshi, M.M., Haberle, R.M., Reynolds, R.T., 1997. Simulations of the
atmospheres of synchronously rotating terrestrial planets orbiting M
dwarfs: conditions for atmospheric collapse and the implications for
habitability. Icarus 129, 450–465.
Kasting, J.F., 1993. Earth’s early atmosphere. Science 259, 920–925.
Kaula, W., 1964. Tidal dissipation by solid friction and the resulting orbital
evolution. J. Geophys. Res. 2, 661–685.
Kino****a, H., 1977. Theory of the rotation of the rigid Earth. Celest. Mech.
15, 277–326.
Konopliv, A.S., Yoder, C.F., 1996. Venusian k2 tidal Love number from
Magellan and PVO tracking data. Geophys: Res. Lett. 23, 1857–1860.
Konopliv, A.S., Borderies, N.J., Chodas, P.W., Christensen, E.J., Sjogren,
W.L., Williams, B.G., Balmino, G., Barriot, J.P., 1993. Venus gravity
and topography: 60th degree and order model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 20,
2403–2406.
Kundt, W., 1977. Spin and atmospheric tides of Venus. Astron. Astrophys.
60, 85–91.
Lago, B., Cazenave, A., 1979. Possible dynamical evolution of the rotation
of Venus since formation. Moon Planets 21, 127–154.
Lambeck, K., 1980. The Earth’s Variable Rotation. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Laskar, J., 1986. Secular terms of classical planetary theories using the
results of general theory. Astron. Astrophys. 157, 59–70.
Laskar, J., 1988. Secular evolution of the Solar System over 10 million
years. Astron. Astrophys. 198, 341–362.
Laskar, J., 1989. Manipulation des se´ries, in: D. Benest, C. Froeschle´
(Eds.), Modern methods in celestial mechanics, Editions Frontie`res,
Gif-sur-Yvette, pp. 89–107.
Laskar, J., 1990. The chaotic motion of the Solar System. Icarus 88,
266–291.
Laskar, J., 1994a. Large-scale chaos in the Solar System. Astron. Astrophys.
287, L9–12.
Laskar, J., 1994b. Description des routines utilisateur de TRIP. Preprint.
Laskar, J., 1999. The limits of Earth orbital calculations for geological
time-scale use. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A 357, 1735–1759.
Laskar, J., Robutel, P., 1993. The chaotic obliquity of the planets. Nature
361, 608–612.
Lumb, L.I., Aldridge, K.D., 1991. On viscosity estimates for the Earth’s
fluid outer core–mantle coupling. J. Geophys. Geoelectr. 43, 93–110.
McCue, J., Dormand, J.R., 1993. Evolution of the spin of Venus. Earth,
Moon, Planets 63, 209–225.
Melton, C.E., Giardini, A.A., 1982. The evolution of the Earth’s atmosphere
and oceans. Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, 579–582.
Mignard, F., 1979. The evolution of the lunar orbit revisited. I. Moon
Planets 20, 301–315.
Mignard, F., 1980. The evolution of the lunar orbit revisited. II. Moon
Planets 23, 185–201.
Munk, W.H., MacDonald, G.J.F., 1960. The Rotation of the Earth: A
Geophysical Discussion. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Ne´ron de Surgy, O., 1996. Influence des effets dissipatifs sur les variations
a` long terme des obliquite´s plane´taires. The`se, Observatoire de Paris.
Ne´ron de Surgy, O., Laskar, J., 1997. On the long term evolution of the
spin of the Earth. Astron. Astrophys. 318, 975–989.
Pais, M.A., Le Moue¨l, J.L., Lambeck, K., Poirier, J.P., 1999. Late Precambrian
paradoxical glaciation and obliquity of the Earth—a discussion of
dynamical constraints. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 174, 155–171.
Pepin, R.O., 1991. On the origin and early evolution of terrestrial planet
atmospheres and meteoritic volatiles. Icarus 92, 2–79.
Pepin, R.O., 1994. Evolution of the martian atmosphere. Icarus 111, 289–
304.
Poincare´, H., 1910. Sur la pre´cession des corps de´formables. Bull. Astron.
27, 321–356.
Poirier, J.P., 1988. Transport properties of liquid metals and the viscosity
of the Earth’s core. Geophys. J. 92, 99–105.
Roberts, P.H., Stewartson, K., 1965. On the motion of a liquid in a
spheroidal cavity of a precessing rigid body, II. Proc. Cambridge Phil.
Soc. 61, 279–288.
Rochester, M.G., 1976. The secular decrease of obliquity due to dissipative
core–mantle coupling. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 46, 109–126.
Sasao, T., Okubo, S., Saito, M., 1980. A simple theory on the dynamical
effects of a stratified core upon the nutational motion of the Earth, in:
R.L. Duncombe (Ed.), Nutation and the Earth’s Rotation: Proceedings
from IAU Symposium no. 78, Kiev, USSR 23–28 May, 1977. International
Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 78, Dordrecht, Holland;
Boston: D. Reidel Pub. Co., p. 165–183.
Schaber, G.G., Strom, R.G., Moore, H.J., Soderblom, L.A., Kirk, R.L.,
Chadwick, D.J., Dawson, D.D., Gaddis, L.R., Boyce, J.M., Russell, J.,
1992. Geology and distribution of impact craters on Venus—what are
they telling us? J. Geophys. Res. 97, 13257–13301.
Shen, M., Zhang, C.Z., 1989. Dynamical evolution of the rotation of
Venus. Earth, Moon, Planets 43, 275–287.
Siebert, M., 1961. Atmospheric Tides—Advances in Geophysics. Academic
Press, New York.
Smith, W.B., 1963. Radar observations of Venus, 1961 and 1959. Astron.
J. 68, 15–21.
Stevenson, D,J, 2002 Planetary magnetic fields Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 208, Issues 1-2 , 15 March 2003, Pages 1-11
Stewartson, K., Roberts, P.H., 1963. On the motion of a liquid in a
spheroidal cavity of a precessing rigid body. J. Fluid Mech. 33, 1–20.
Toomre, A., 1974. On the ‘nearly diurnal wobble’ of the Earth. Geophys.
J. R. Astron. Soc. 38, 335–348.
Walker, J.C.G., 1975. Evolution of the atmosphere of Venus. J. Atmos. Sci.
32, 1248–1256.
Williams, G.E., 1989. Tidal rhythmites: geochronometers for the ancient
Earth–Moon system. Episodes 12 (3), 162–171.
Williams, G.E., 1993. History of the Earth’s obliquity. Earth Sci. Revi. 34,
1–45.
Yoder, C.F., 1995. Venus’ free obliquity. Icarus 117, 1–37.
Yoder, C.F., 1997. Venusian spin dynamics, in: S.W. Bougher, D.M.
Hunten, R.J. Philips (Eds.), Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere,
and Solar Wind Environment, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, pp. 1087–1124.
Zahnle, K.J., Kasting, J.F., Pollack, J.B., 1988. Evolution of a steam
atmosphere during Earth’s accretion. Icarus 74, 62–97.
23 A.C.M. Correia et al. / Icarus 163 (2003) 1–23

 

[Andre]

Anyway you did A VERY QUICK CHECK, which suggest that some weeks ago when Nereid listed Venus specifically as something that could be worth another thought, you did not bother to do so before starting the beating around.

 

[ZapperZ]

So it's all in the numbers. If you can't give numbers, you have failed regardless what. But numbers are useless when you fail to cross check what other hypotheses require. And of course that you found something that overarches everything like Popper likes to see is far inferior to presenting a numerical model.

Here is a list of references.

What you call "numbers" are required to do exactly just that - check the hypothesis! You said people in that field of study didn't do ANY BETTER than what you are doing. I pointed out just ONE that I found from a quick search that clearly falsify your statement.

Being able to come up with "numbers" require the formulation of a TESTABLE model! You cannot just say "what goes up must come down". This is utterly inadequate for a formulation of an idea. You must also say when and where it will come down! You don't even get close to this. Yet, you have no problem in claiming that you have solved "Venus". Honestly, are you THAT surprised that you've been called a crackpot?

Zz.

 

[Andre]

There are numerous numbers to check the hypothesis. There is just not a sophisticated explaining itl model. Detailed geologic evidence with number seem to be rather supportive. Perhaps it's an idea to even try page two and three of the thread.

 

[ZapperZ]

Anyway you did A VERY QUICK CHECK, which suggest that some weeks ago when Nereid listed Venus specifically as something that could be worth another thought, you did not bother to do so before starting the beating around.

I do not follow the forum that you obviously spew your ideas in (lucky for me because I can't STAND hand-waving arguments being mistaken for definitive explanation). I take exception here in THIS thread because you seem to act as if you're a "victim" of something that is of no fault of your own. You brought this upon yourself!

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

There are numerous numbers to check the hypothesis. There is just not a sophisticated explaining itl model. Detailed geologic evidence with number seem to be rather supportive. Perhaps it's an idea to even try page two and three of the thread.

Hello? The "numbers" are the outcome of a clear model! Both you, and someone checking it SHOULD be aware of the model! So how can there be a non "sophisticated" model producing "numerous numbers" that "seem to be rather supportive"? This is getting funnier by the minute!

If I say "Venus consist of a solid core of radius R1, a gas shell of radius up to a radius of R2... with inner core density of rho1 and gas density of rho2..."etc., do you think you, I, and everyone who understands basic physics can (i) figure out the moment of inertia (ii) compare that to the spinning rate (iii) figure out the gravitational attraction to the sun (iv) compare with observational results? When you propose something, you HAVE to come up with the DYNAMICAL model especially in this field. If not, there is NO WAY to compare with observational data! You can't just say "oh, friction with the core reduces its spin". This is bogus! You come up with a model that details the mechanism of such a friction, including any assumption or coefficients being used, and THEN, show that the application of that model with proper initial conditions does produce REALISTIC results!

Now tell me with a straight face that you HAVE done this.

Zz.

 

[Andre]

Nereid, If you follow this would you please reconsider the value of Thomas Kuhn.

 

[ZapperZ]

Nereid, If you follow this would you please reconsider the value of Thomas Kuhn.

If all of this is nothing more than an exercise in the practice of a philosophical school of thought, then I have utterly wasted my time for nothing!

Zz.

 

[Andre]

No You have not, I thank you for the very clear demonstration of your objectives and the demonstration of the mechanism how science really works. That's valuable, I think.

 

[vanesch]

The whole process can be very educational for everyone who is not involved in professional science, but wants to learn about how it is done. Have you ever heard of schools that hold "Model United Nations" or something along those lines? Each participant plays a role, the moderator comes up with some issue for them to work out and sets the rules, and they simulate the workings of the real UN. Is it real, professional international politics? No. Is it going to change the face of world government? No. Does everyone learn something from the process? Yes, they do.

Tom, I think it is a great idea. It might, however, take more time and effort than you think ! But try it, I think it is a worthy idea.

cheers,
Parick.

 

[Locrian]

I liked the TD forum. The internet is full of mentally unstable crackpots, but it was nice to have a simple place I could quickly click to and see a listing of their most immediate thoughts. I'm not sure where to go to find that kind of efficiency of entertainment. Of course, that's not what physicsforums is for and I support the new idea completely.

Goodluck on the new venture, I hope it is productive and not too painful!

 

[ZapperZ]

I liked the TD forum. The internet is full of mentally unstable crackpots, but it was nice to have a simple place I could quickly click to and see a listing of their most immediate thoughts. I'm not sure where to go to find that kind of efficiency of entertainment. Of course, that's not what physicsforums is for and I support the new idea completely.

Goodluck on the new venture, I hope it is productive and not too painful!

Oy vey, Locrian! :)

Go to the Yahoo groups and look in the large physics areas. You're bound to find something to suit your perverse needs! :)

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

I liked the TD forum.

You can keep it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/f-12

 

[Locrian]

Well here's to ya, TD. You were great fun while it lasted. Let's celebrate the greatest post ever made in that forum. A poem, read by the author.

Well, at least I still have the Philosophy of Science forum. It gets reasonable marks on the wacky scale.

 

[ZapperZ]

Well, at least I still have the Philosophy of Science forum. It gets reasonable marks on the wacky scale.

Hey Locrian,

If you're bored and have nothing to do, find for me the penetration depth of 250 nm UV in diamond, won't you? For the life of me, I can't find it... yet.

That should keep you out of trouble for a while. :)

Zz.

 

[Nereid]

aren't diamonds transparent to UV? (no wait, that's quartz)

 

[Chronos]

Not exactly what you asked for Zapper, but close:
http://saf.chem.ox.ac.uk/Instruments/FTIR/FTSoptprin.html

 

[ZapperZ]

Not exactly what you asked for Zapper, but close:
http://saf.chem.ox.ac.uk/Instruments/FTIR/FTSoptprin.html

Thanks, Chronos. It's in the ball park, but unfortunately, I already have IR parameters. For some reason, the UV parameters are rather elusive. And since a number of people have kindly volunteered to look up stuff on this, I'll say exactly what I'm looking for. Anything "close" to these are acceptable:

material: UNCD (ultrananocrystalline diamond)
parameters: either penetration depth at 240 nm wavelength, or attenuation depth/skin depth at the same wavelength.

The best possible source would be an experimentally published result. And unfortunately, this has gone off-topic for this thread, so if you and anyone else have any more to ask or send to me, you are welcome to PM me with it.

Thanks!

Zz.

 

[Zanket]

I think this new forum is a great idea, and the submission rules are good, with the following exceptions:

1) It seems from the rules that a link cannot be posted. If so, that's a problem for me, mainly due to the PF rule that “All content posted on this site is copyrighted to Physics Forums”. I think an abstract and a link should be acceptable.

2) I think the LaTeX requirement should be a suggestion rather than a requirement.

3) The 60 post limit sounds like censorship. Why potentially halt discussion before a submission is refuted? I see no good reason.

PF can have any rules it wants of course, but I’ve found plenty of smart people to bounce ideas off from on other forums that let me post a link and with no posting limit. The copyright issue and the 60 post limit would keep me from submitting to this new forum. That does not mean it’s not a great idea—it’s just not for me.

 

[quantumdude]

1) It seems from the rules that a link cannot be posted. If so, that's a problem for me, mainly due to the PF rule that “All content posted on this site is copyrighted to Physics Forums”. I think an abstract and a link should be acceptable.

I would not consider a link acceptable because it would effectively negate the 60 post limit. The discussion should be self-contained in the thread.

2) I think the LaTeX requirement should be a suggestion rather than a requirement.

That requirement is in place because mathematical expressions can be downright illegible when typed out. Of course, I wouldn't reject a submission if it contained something like:

E=mc²,

which is perfectly legible in HTML code. But something like this?

(hbar^2/2m)del^2(Psi)=i*hbar(d Psi/dt)

No way, Jose. It's up to to submitter to make his thoughts clear, not up to the reviewers to clear things up on his behalf.

Besides, LaTeX is not hard to learn.

3) The 60 post limit sounds like censorship.

Eh? It's the screening process that is censorship, not the 60 post limit. Once the submission makes it past the screening forum, its contents won't be removed from PF or edited in any way.

Why potentially halt discussion before a submission is refuted? I see no good reason.

The 60 post limit is there for a few very good reasons.

First, it is a way to regulate the posting of people who come to PF just to push an agenda. We've had many such types in the past who aren't so much interested in talking about physics as they are in talking about their own ideas about physics. The 60 post limit is our way of saying, "You can have your say, but after 3 pages enough is enough. Find something else to talk about." We don't want personal agendas becoming a focal point of this site, and so we won't allow threads on homegrown, unverified theories to hang around open forever.

Second, it is a way to keep the thread quality high. Science Forums Network and Philosophy Forums both have "Debate Forums". There are two debaters, each makes exactly 10 posts, then it's over. As one might expect, those 20 post threads are among the most worthwhile reading on the site. Besides, a lesson that we learned well from the old Theory Development forum is that threads that are allowed to go on for pages upon pages tend to turn ugly.

Third, the new forum is for work that has not yet been peer reviewed. If someone can't make his point in 3 pages of posting and responding to others' posts, then we see no reason to host a 4th page of it. And if the content from a closed thread from the new forum ever does eventually make it past peer review, I'll personally graduate the thread to the main section of PF and unlock it.

Fourth, speaking directly to your comment, if the people here can't refute the theory in the thread inside of 60 posts, then I cannot see how allowing a 4th page would change things. If our formidable army of scientists and mathematicians cannot find a cool person in the armor, then that might just be an indicator that the thread is ready to move up to the next level.

As the moderator of the new forum, I am going to insist on highly substantive posts from both the "pro" and "con" camps. I'm not going to allow any cheap posts that do nothing but nitpick to eat up the thread. We will get more mileage out of 60 posts in the new forum than in any other part of the site.

 

[Zanket]

Thanks for the response.

I don’t see how a link effectively negates the 60 post limit, since everything in the link could otherwise be put into the original submission—the first post. The copyright issue is a big one, don't you think? There is virtually no possibility that a submission to this new forum could be peer-reviewed if the holder of the copyright is in doubt.

Your last sentence especially is reassuring on the 60 post limit. I was thinking that, in other forums, it can often take 10 posts to clear up a minor misunderstanding.

 

[quantumdude]

I don’t see how a link effectively negates the 60 post limit, since everything in the link could otherwise be put into the original submission—the first post.

It should be obvious. A person could put 600 posts worth of material on his website and link it to the opening post. Hence, the 60 post limit could be easily short circuited.

The copyright issue is a big one, don't you think? There is virtually no possibility that a submission to this new forum could be peer-reviewed if the holder of the copyright is in doubt.

Call me dense, but I don't get it. We have a member (Garth) who has some published stuff, and some unpublished stuff. He is sending his unpublished stuff to the new forum, and as far as I know he has no worries about publishing that stuff later, despite the fact that it is being published in the new forum.

What do you know that we don't?

 

[Zanket]

It should be obvious. A person could put 600 posts worth of material on his website and link it to the opening post. Hence, the 60 post limit could be easily short circuited.

Call me dense, but I don't get it. If all “600 posts worth of material” on the website could be put into the opening post (assuming that’s what it took to state the case—and of course it’s likely to be way less than that), then how does the website have more than one post’s worth of material? How much material on a website is one post worth of material?

Call me dense, but I don't get it. We have a member (Garth) who has some published stuff, and some unpublished stuff. He is sending his unpublished stuff to the new forum, and as far as I know he has no worries about publishing that stuff later, despite the fact that it is being published in the new forum.

What do you know that we don't?

Journals require that all submissions be from the copyright holder, or an authorized agent. The act of posting on PF is an act of transferring to PF the copyright of the material posted, according to the PF user agreement. Then nothing posted on PF can be submitted to a journal unless PF authorizes that. Suppose something Garth posts in the new forum makes it into a journal sans PF's authorization. Then PF can legally demand damage (money) from both the journal and Garth for copyright infringement.

 

[Garth]

I wouldn't submit exactly the same article to a journal that I had posted on PF!

Garth

 

[quantumdude]

Call me dense, but I don't get it. If all “600 posts worth of material” on the website could be put into the opening post (assuming that’s what it took to state the case—and of course it’s likely to be way less than that), then how does the website have more than one post’s worth of material? How much material on a website is one post worth of material?

I don't know the exact limit, but there is a finite number of characters allowed in a single post. And when LaTeX is involved, the limit is imposed by the server itself, in that it can only process so much material in a post. I ran up against that in my differential forms thread.

Also if links to one's own website are allowed then it would be contrary to the screening process as well. Say a submission with a link to one's own site is approved. The owner of the site could then edit it after the fact in such a way that it would not have been accepted. At PF there is a 24 hour time limit on editing. By the time any submission is finished in the screening forum, that time limit will have expired, and the submission will appear "as is" if approved.

I think it's safe to say that none of the staff would be willing to undertake this venture if we could not regulate what appears in the forum.

Journals require that all submissions be from the copyright holder, or an authorized agent. The act of posting on PF is an act of transferring to PF the copyright of the material posted, according to the PF user agreement. Then nothing posted on PF can be submitted to a journal unless PF authorizes that. Suppose something Garth posts in the new forum makes it into a journal sans PF's authorization. Then PF can legally demand damage (money) from both the journal and Garth for copyright infringement.

See Garth's post above mine. Surely it would not be difficult to write a different article based on the same science to submit to a journal.

 

[Zanket]

I don't know the exact limit, but there is a finite number of characters allowed in a single post. ... I ran up against that in my differential forms thread.

Then using a link would benefit, because it would not limit the size of the case being made. If a typical scientific paper does not fit into a single post, then the forum is significantly limited in usefulness.

I think it's safe to say that none of the staff would be willing to undertake this venture if we could not regulate what appears in the forum.

Those are good reasons.

See Garth's post above mine. Surely it would not be difficult to write a different article based on the same science to submit to a journal.

The articles need only make substantially the same points.

 

[Aer]

How were the following guidelines quoted below agreed upon? Since these theories are being discussed in a forum setting, I would suggest the following section format to be required:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Derivations
4. Results
5. Conclusions

The reason I propose this is because most people who are going to submit such papers here are doing so because they cannot get it reviewed anywhere else as they most likely do not have appropriate credentials and the formatting they would choose to write their paper has much to be desired. Any other sections than those listed above shouldn't be neccessary, including appendices. A reference to a paper available online should be sufficient. If it's not available online and important to the discussion, the author can choose to include it in the derivations section with appropriate references.

1. The opening post must contain an abstract stating the results obtained and how the new theory is at variance with currently accepted theories.

2. If an independently researched theory makes claims different from those made by currently accepted theories then the opening post must contain a section that either cites experiments that have been done that decide between the new and old theories, or it must propose experiments that could be done to decide between the two.

3. If an independently researched theory is experimentally indistinguishable from a currently accepted theory then the opening post must contain a section that clearly explains the conceptual differences between the two, and what if anything is to be gained from the new perspective.

4. All references to relevant prior work must be documented in the opening post.

5. Quantitative predictions must be derived, wherever appropriate.

6. New theories must not be already strongly inconsistent with the results of prior experiments.

7. If a new theory is strongly inconsistent with prior experiments, but the theorist is insisting that the experiments were either misconducted or misinterpreted by the scientific community, then the thread will be rejected. Instead the theorist should rebut the contradicting scientists in an appropriate journal.

8. Theories containing obvious mathematical or logical errors will not be accepted.


The decision to accept or reject a thread for this Subforum rests with the Staff and Science Advisors of Physics Forums. Decisions will be reached by consensus, and will be based entirely on the guidelines listed above. No Staff Member or Science Advisor will participate in the discussion of his or her own thread.

Action will be taken on all threads within 7 days of submission. If a thread is accepted then it will appear in this Subforum. If a thread is rejected the theorist will receive a PM from me that states the reason(s) for rejecting it.

Threads in this Subforum will not exceed 60 posts. I will take care to delete responses which are not relevant to the topic.

If rejected, theorists will be granted one opportunity to address the stated reasons for rejection, and to resubmit. Threads submitted to this Subforum that are not substantially different from previously terminated threads (after the 3 page limit) or threads that have been rejected twice will not be considered.