Are Scientific Journals Passe? Has Peer Review Become Sneer Review? Do Scientists Ste

[astro]

Are Scientific Journals Passe? Has Peer Review Become Sneer Review? Do Scientists Steal From Submitted Papers? Is the Internet The New Way? MDT Rock On!!

Suppose you come up with a new idea.



Would you first of all


a) share it on the internet, releasing it early and often as you honed
it?


b) spend a year writing it up, complying to the journals' rules, and
then spend another year submitting it and waiting, waiting, waiting
until some random supposed insider epsert somewhere deemed your work
worthy?


Have there not been cases where supposedly rejected papers were
co-opted or stolen? Discuss!!


For instance, now that MDT has a track record on the internet, nobody
can steal it--they must reference it.


http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=60 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=60)


The Specific Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory:


The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the rate of c in quantized units of the Planck length.


Classical physics, quantum mechanics, and relativity descend from this
simple postulate. Light, and thus all energy, is quantized as the
dimension which transports it expands in a quantized manner. Light
travels at a constant velocity in all frames because velocity is
measured relative to time which is measured relative to the light that
is transported by the fourth expanding dimension. Thus both fundamental
constants h and c emerge from the fundamental nature of the expansion
of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions. And
thus MDT provides a simple, unifying postulate accounting for the
classical, relativistic, and quantum mechanical properties of this
universe.


And it's always been simple postulates, as opposed to abstruse
mathematics and mythologies, that have furthered physics.


Do we even need Scientific Journals anymore, when science no longer
needs to be tested, and is more for social gattherings at expensive
reosrts? Isn't String Theory a case and point demonstration that
journals are worthless for anything other than landing government
grants, getting tenure, and promoting myths?


What journals did Newton publish in?


If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
--Albert Einstein


If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
--Isaac Newton


Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, felt that the pioneer
scientist must have "a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are
not generated by deduction, but by artistically creative imagination."


An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the
opponents gradually die out.
--Max Planck


Do the above quotes not suggest that established journals may be the
least likely place to accept ideas based on logic and reason,
especially in these days of hyped mythologies?
http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=60 (http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=60)

Scientific journals cost millions upon millions of tax and tuition dollars to publish and maintain. Why not just publish them in elctronic form on the internet? Are there physicists outthere who don't have access to computers?

Should not logic, reason, and physics prevail over peers in physics? People are fallibale and emotional. Logic and reason are more certain to lead the way.

[T.E. Jones]

[b][size=4]The Specific Postulate of Moving Dimensions Theory:

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial
dimensions at the rate of c in quantized units of the Planck length.

Classical physics, quantum mechanics, and relativity descend from this
simple postulate. Light, and thus all energy, is quantized as the
dimension which transports it expands in a quantized manner. Light
travels at a constant velocity in all frames because velocity is
measured relative to time which is measured relative to the light that
is transported by the fourth expanding dimension. Thus both fundamental
constants h and c emerge from the fundamental nature of the expansion
of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions. And
thus MDT provides a simple, unifying postulate accounting for the
classical, relativistic, and quantum mechanical properties of this
universe. ...

What journals did Newton publish in?

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.
--Albert Einstein

... Scientific journals cost millions upon millions of tax and tuition dollars to publish and maintain. Why not just publish them in elctronic form on the internet?

Moving dimensions theory is pretty sane: the cosmic expansion is independent of the results of general relativity, such as gravitational contraction. See http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=64

Observed Hubble recession velocity (radial, spherically symmetric):

v = Hx,

H is Hubble parameter, x is distance from us.

Error in this: spacetime, because x can also be expressed in terms of time x = ct. In fact, this is the best way to describe it, because we're seeing earlier times with increasing distance. For example, we don't know anything except as it was at the time x/c in the past, where x is the observable distance.

‘The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.’ – Hermann Minkowski, 1908

Now when we correct this for spacetime, voilà!

v = H(ct)

A variation of v as a function of time is described as an acceleration.

Since there is evidence that gravity in general relativity is supposed to go at light speed (not instantly), this spacetime representation is what counts.

The outward effective acceleration is dv/dt = Hc(t - 0)/(0 + t) = Hc

F = ma = mHc ~ 10^43 Newtons outward from us. (We know mass of universe, it is density times observable volume.)

Newton's 3rd law: every action has equal and opposite reaction.

Gauge boson radiation therefore pushes inward with F = mHc ~ 10^43 N.

This pushes things together locally, and causes the gravitational contraction effect in GR. (Local masses don't exchange forceful Yang-Mills radiation because they aren't receding from each other at enormous speed. So a static mass relative to the observer acts as a shield, and you get pushed towards the earth.)

Dark energy is a myth because gravity is a reaction to surrounding expansion.

The most distant stuff near the horizon can't be slowed down because there is nothing further beyond to send back gauge boson radiation. So there is no inward gravity effect that would cause retardation. This is the major difference between this fact-based model and the mainstream speculative lambda-CDM model of GR.

Hence it is a crime to invent dark energy. There is no evidence that the Hubble empirical expansion rate, v = Hx, is slowing down. There is simply no gravitational retardation. What the Lambda-CDM model does is to avoid having the 1998 supernova results falsify the prediction by adding a fiddle:

Mainstream: (a) gravitational retardation is not falsified by observations which disagree with it, (b) we don't see any gravitational retardation in the expansion data because of unseen dark energy which causes a small positive cosmological constant that just keeps everything nice and cosy for the mainstream.

Mechanism: there is no gravitational retardation, because the mechanism published via October 1996 Electronics World forbids it (Campbell and Ziemelis of Nature wouldn't review it, Cook's tutors at Open University such as Dr Bob Lambourne suggested that string theory rules out alternatives, and although IoP's journal Classical and Quantum Gravity had a more helpful editor who did send it for peer review, apparently the reviewer was related to Lubos Motl).

The mechanism predicts the correct value for the strength of gravity: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

1. The radiation is received by mass almost equally from all directions, coming from other masses in the universe. Because the gauge bosons are exchange radiation, the radiation is in effect reflected back the way it came if there is symmetry that prevents the mass from being moved. The result is then a mere compression of the mass by the amount mathematically predicted by general relativity, i.e., the radial contraction is by the small distance MG/(3c^2) = 1.5 mm for the contraction of the spacetime fabric by the mass in the Earth.

2. If you are near a mass, it creates an asymmetry in the radiation exchange, because the radiation normally received from the distant masses in the universe is red-shifted by high speed recession, but the nearby mass is not receding significantly. By Newton’s 2nd law the outward force of a nearby mass which is not receding (in spacetime) from you is F = ma = mv/t = mv/(x/c) = mcv/x = 0. Hence by Newton’s 3rd law, the inward force of gauge bosons coming towards you from that mass is also zero; there is no action and so there is no reaction. As a result, the local mass shields you, creating an asymmetry. So you get pushed towards the shield. This is why apples fall.

3. The universe empirically looks similar in all directions around us: hence the net unshielded gravity force equal to the total inward force, F = ma ~ mcH, multiplied by the proportion of the shielded area of a spherical surface around the observer (see diagram). The surface area of the sphere with radius R (the average distance of the receding matter that is contributing to the inward gauge boson force) is 4 Pi R^2. The ‘clever’ mathematical bit is that the shielding area of a local mass is projected on to this area by very simple geometry: the local mass of say the planet Earth, the centre of which is distance r from you, casts a ‘shadow’ (on the distant surface 4 Pi R^2) equal to its shielding area multiplied by the simple ratio (R / r)^2. This ratio is very big. Because R is a fixed distance, as far as we are concerned for calculating the fall of an apple or the ‘attraction’ of a man to the Earth, the most significant variable the 1/ r^2 factor, which we all know is the Newtonian inverse square law of gravity. For two separate rigorous and full accurate treatments see Proof: http://feynman137.tripod.com/#h

[Epsilon=One]

…the cosmic expansion is independent of the results of general relativity, such as gravitational contraction.Yes. Einstein knew nothing of accelerating, galactic recession; but he knew enough to consider the Cosmological Constant (CC); though, he made several mistakes with it. The CC does show that Einstein was aware of Cosmic Inertia; he just couldn’t configure it properly into GR.

‘The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lays their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.’ – Hermann Minkowski, 1908Both Minkowski and Einstein were wrong. Space and time are two entirely different concepts; however, their occurrence is closely associated with the formation of a seminal quantum of space; thus, they can be easily commingled, which is what causes many of the fundamental problems when the Standard Models (SM) are extended and become irreconcilable.

Since there is evidence that gravity in general relativity is supposed to go at light speed (not instantly), this spacetime representation is what counts.No. GR is wrong on this count. No less an expert on GR than Kip Thorne is uncertain as to what GR says about the speed of gravity.

If it were other than near infinite the Cosmos would look like a pool table rather than “sing with the harmony of the spheres” with smooth, universally entangled motion.

If the speed of gravity were limited to the SOL, gravity waves (GW) would have been found long ago. I have no doubt that Caltech is blowing another half-billion dollars in an unsuccessful effort to find GWs.

This pushes things together locally, and causes the gravitational contraction effect in GR. (Local masses don't exchange forceful Yang-Mills radiation because they aren't receding from each other at enormous speed. So a static massThis statement is fraught with error . . . too much to detail. GR is a simplistic, flawed equation when it comes to describing gravity. Einstein gave up trying to explain this. Once he died you would think that GR was from God . . . much like Christ and the Christian Bible.

Dark energy is a myth because gravity is a reaction to surrounding expansion.Gravity can be said to be a reaction to Cosmic Inertia; however, this would tend (erroneously), in accordance with many theoretical particle physicists, to argue for dark energy (DE).

At present DE is the only way to explain emergent forces that make possible the observed behavior of ordinary matter as theorized by quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Despite the virtual nature of quarks and gluons, QCD is highly successful in predicting observation. At present, the consensus with all world-class particle physicists and astrophysicists is that there is little hope that DE can be ignored.

My own opinion is that DE is easily explainable as the source of energy that forms the ephemeral particles and interactions of all ordinary matter.

Certainly, DE and dark matter (DM) can not be dismissed by citing the work of anyone prior to the last 10 or 15 years; or citing anything that is dependent upon Standard Models and their metaphysical forces.

Most all of your citations originated before modern technology had evolved the tools for current observation of the macro and micro environment.

You seem more concerned with maintaining the status quo than seeking answers to undeniable enigmas.

If you are correct, then: stars must be tied to their galaxies; Newton’s ancient interpretation of inertia must be correct; gravity will forever be relegated to the metaphysical; the emergent forces of quantum dynamics are illusions; and, time along with Light’s morphing to mass . . . will never be understood. That is to say, cosmology and QCD will be, respectively, set back near 50 and 25 years.

I cannot accept such when the answers are all before us for the taking.

Never thought I would be advocating SM theory, which I AM NOT. However, I do believe the anomalies, enigmas, and paradoxes that SMs raise, which are all observable with the tools of their respective disciplines.

That DE and DM do not exist makes my arguments that there was no big bang and that black holes do not exist seem quite conservative in comparison. Welcome aboard my “Looney” express!!

[T.E. Jones]

You dismiss Minkowski's spacetime and the big bang because you find errors in them, but you are entirely delighted by 'dark energy'. Spacetime as used above is entirely factual: the moon is 1 second away, sun is 8 minutes away, etc. If the force mediator goes at the same speed as light, then description of distance in terms of time is entirely objective because distances will change while the effects are in transit to you.

For electromagnetic repulsion, Yang-Mills theory is literally correct. The exchange of gauge bosons causes the charges to recoil apart. All radiation carries momentum!

But for attraction, shielding is involved which causes them to get pushed together. The same is proved true for gravity, predicting it correctly.

Therefore, gravity is proved to travel with the speed of photons in electromagnetism. If Jesus says something to the contrary, He is making an error. Reality is determined by checkable facts, not by authority. (Well, that is not the case for 'Motley' string theorists, but they are real crackpots.)

[Epsilon=One]

Therefore, gravity is proved to travel with the speed of photons in electromagnetism. If Jesus says something to the contrary, He is making an error. Reality is determined by checkable facts, not by authority.You are right on concerning Reality. It’s the “checkable facts” where we disagree.

Photons travel at the SOL; however, the “envelope,” a Pulsoid, the seminal quantum, within which photons emerge (resonate), travels at the speed of gravity. It is the compression of these Pulsoids that is a major component of the phenomena of gravity and the reaction of Cosmic Inertia.

To begin, I do not accept the SOL as constant. The very thought defies all logic.

I do believe that the acceleration that is associated with the speed of lot is absolutely minuscule at anthropoidal scale. Light accelerates at a constant rate that is equivalent to the Conceptual Constant (a component of fundamental, intrinsic time), which is only noticeable at speeds beyond that which are observable with today's technology. The internal geometry of a light wave allows for no other interpretation.

Logic also precludes (for reasons that I have previously mentioned here and prior posts) the speed of gravity as less than hyper-relativistic. Not only is this quite observable (by what we don’t see) from all “checkable facts”; but, it is a possible consideration from the person closest to the conundrum in possession of the most facts and knowledge of the mathematics of GR . . . Kip Thorne (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/).

I don't cite Kip as evidence that I agree with any of his mainstream physics. I cite him to indicate the that question is far from settled, as you seem to indicate that it is.

[T.E. Jones]

You are right on concerning Reality. It’s the “checkable facts” where we disagree.

Photons travel at the SOL; however, the “envelope,” a Pulsoid, the seminal quantum, within which photons emerge (resonate), travels at the speed of gravity. It is the compression of these Pulsoids that is a major component of the phenomena of gravity and the reaction of Cosmic Inertia.

To begin, I do not accept the SOL as constant. The very thought defies all logic.

I do believe that the acceleration that is associated with the speed of lot is absolutely minuscule at anthropoidal scale. Light accelerates at a constant rate that is equivalent to the Conceptual Constant (a component of fundamental, intrinsic time), which is only noticeable at speeds beyond that which are observable with today's technology. The internal geometry of a light wave allows for no other interpretation.

Logic also precludes (for reasons that I have previously mentioned here and prior posts) the speed of gravity as less than hyper-relativistic. Not only is this quite observable (by what we don’t see) from all “checkable facts”; but, it is a possible consideration from the person closest to the conundrum in possession of the most facts and knowledge of the mathematics of GR . . . Kip Thorne (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/).

I don't cite Kip as evidence that I agree with any of his mainstream physics. I cite him to indicate the that question is far from settled, as you seem to indicate that it is.

Surely it depends on what you mean by speed of light. If a man runs after a beam of light, it will appear to the man that no matter how fast he runs, light is still apparently moving away from him at 300,000 km/s.

But this is an illusion due to the FitzGerald contraction: the man's measuring rod (or whatever instrument he uses to measure) will get contracted in the direction of motion. So it is a trick, an illusion, which makes relativity work.

FitzGerald in Science, 1889, explained this first: some kind of 'ether' pressure (actually the QFT gauge boson radiation pressure, not a Maxwellian aether) actually saves absolute velocity of light in the Michelson-Morley experiment, by making the instrument contract in the direction of motion (but not in an orthagonal direction), shortening the distance light travels and preventing a change in interference fringes when the instrument is rotated.

In other words, the speed of light is absolute and does depend on the motion of observers, although the observers can't detect this because of the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction.

Einstein seemed to grasp by 1915 that because light is deflected by gravity, its velocity changes (velocity is a vector depending on direction as well as speed), disproving the key of special relativity.

Special relativity is just a mathematical trick to get the 1889 FitzGerald contraction, Larmor's 1901 time-dilation, and Poincare's 1904 relativity results (based on 3 postulates), using only 2 postulates. Vey nice, pity it was disproved by the experiment that confirmed general relativity in 1919.

'The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether [gauge boson radiation field], because the effect looked for - the delay of one of thelight waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of thematter forming the apparatus... The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.' - Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919), FRS, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

[Epsilon=One]

Einstein seemed to grasp by 1915 that because light is deflected by gravity, its velocity changes (velocity is a vector depending on direction as well as speed), disproving the key of special relativity.

Special relativity is just a mathematical trick to get the 1889 FitzGerald contraction, Larmor's 1901 time-dilation, and Poincare's 1904 relativity results (based on 3 postulates), using only 2 postulates. Vey nice, pity it was disproved by the experiment that confirmed general relativity in 1919.

'The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether [gauge boson radiation field], because the effect looked for - the delay of one of thelight waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of thematter forming the apparatus... The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.' - Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919), FRS, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.Unbelievable. You are correct. I thought only Einstein had a firm grasp of this situation. AE was a little off; however closer than academia, for the most part, is nearly 100 years and much technology later.

[ppsh]

I reviewed myself may be about 20 papers and published about 40. Enough to learn about peer review system. One can not invent better system but we also need to understand problems. First: the review system do not protect against fraud. Reviewers do not even check this possibility until something looks really wrong. The system works exceptionally bad in small scientific communities. There are subjectes where only 5-6 groups are working all around globe. In this case it is extremely difficult for people from outside to get through with new ideas or with something crytical: their papers always go for review to the same people. If those people wish to keep monopoly on truth-they can hold on rejecting good crytical papers for decades.
Usually it is enough to have just one "bad" referee for paper to be rejected.
I had situations when 3 referees are positive and just one against: Editors decide in favor of negative even if he writes something extremely stupid.
In some cases we could catch such a referee on mistakes in physics or to prove that he is not familiar with the field. But "smart" referee will not even mention subjects of paper: it is enough to write that paper is "not earthshuttering" (last example), not sufficiently novel (even if nobody before studied subject), not urgent for publication or (I like it most!) " the paper is difficult to understand (?!)" . What can author respond to this? "Please try harder!" or may be "write where you live and I will make earthquake there!"
One my friend found suspicious data in one paper received for review: it repeated some experimental curve from previous paper with all noise. Remember Hedric Schon?. My friend writes to Editor, Editor send question to authors. The reply is fascinating: "we ourself are surprized how similar these curves are, what nice reproducibility!" My friend rejects paper, the Editor reply: I like this paper and we will publish it anyway. My friend asked this journal never send to him papers for review....

[ppsh]

I have nice example. I got some very interesting result, understood how important is this result and submitted paper to Science. "Science" replied that this subject is not interesting for broad audience and in 9 month time publish the paper on the same subject and without reference to us! We published our paper in other journal, but not rapidly enough to get priority.
Their paper to science was submitted two days after our paper was published on line. Can this be just a coincidence? I hardly believe it.
Their paper was better, no doubt, they also had all clues in their hands long before, thay just did not realized what they hold hands. When some of these guys saw our paper-it was for him only two months of work to make it really well and to be first. In case if our paper is rejected from "Science" of course...
I know several similar examples from other fields also. One case with Nature was especially nice. Two papers are published in two month time about the same subject. Only looking on submission dates one can understand: the paper which was submitted first (several months before second) was published two month later. Reviewing system was holding those poor guys half a year to wait until their concurents complete similar study... They were lucky at least to publish something. With statement that they don't have competing financial interests with other group and not going to apply for funding using their paper... nicely done.