bud wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

john larkin wrote:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it's broken.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.
..
yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...

Every now and then someone writes a totally nonsense paper, basically
a parody, and gets it reviewed and published. AI take the work out of
even that.

Some of the parodies are so good that they get deliberately reprinted.
One such that I can find on ADS in full is:

"On the imperturbability of Elevator Operators", Candlestickmaker, S.
(after the style of astrophysicist Chandrasekhar)

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1972QJRAS..13...63C/0000063.000.html

Several others also exist as spoofs/in jokes published in the style of
various famous theoreticians and journals and have been known to end up
in bound volumes since librarians tend to go by the front covers of the
periodicals and don't actually read the contents.

Another I can vaguely recall was "Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown"
and another one that Dirac thought so hilarious he paid to have it published >> in the exact layout of a specific learned journal.

Random Walk in Science has a few of them in.

One fairly well known fake was "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" by Alan Sokal submitted
to see if "a leading North American journal of cultural studies" would publish it. They did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

"Do Gravitational Waves Exist?" (Einstein and Rosen)

Einstein Versus the Physical Review

Einstein stopped submitting work to the Physical Review after
receiving a negative critique from the journal in response to
a paper he had written with Rosen on gravitational waves later
in 1936. That much has long been known, at least to the editors
of Einstein's collected papers. But the story of Einstein's
subsequent interaction with the referee in that case is not well
known to physicists outside of the gravitational-wave community.
Last March, the journal's current editor-in-chief, Martin Blume,
and his colleagues uncovered the journal's logbook records from
the era, a find that has confirmed the suspicions about that
referee's identity. Moreover, the story raises the possibility
that Einstein's gravitational-wave paper with Rosen may have
been his only genuine encounter with anonymous peer review.
Einstein, who reacted angrily to the referee report, would have
been well advised to pay more attention to its criticisms, which
proved to be valid. ...

Einstein submitted this research to the Physical Review under
the title "Do Gravitational Waves Exist?" with Rosen as coauthor.
Although the original version of the paper no longer exists,
Einstein's answer to the title question, to judge from his letter
to Born, was "No." It is remarkable that at this stage in his
career Einstein was prepared to believe that gravitational waves
did not exist, but he also managed to convince his new assistant,
Leopold Infeld, who replaced Rosen in 1936, that his argument was
valid.

(excerpt)

<https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/58/9/43/399405/Einstein-Versus-the-Physical-Review-A-great>

Danke,

--
Don, KB7RPU, https://www.qsl.net/kb7rpu
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/07/2024 2:12 am, john larkin wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:43:33 -0600, bud-- <null@void.com> wrote:

On 7/13/2024 8:49 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 13/07/2024 14:30, john larkin wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 05:00:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
wrote:

Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it’s broken. >>>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/

  There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to >>>>> catch fraud anyway.
..
yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...

Every now and then someone writes a totally nonsense paper, basically
a parody, and gets it reviewed and published. AI take the work out of
even that.

Some of the parodies are so good that they get deliberately reprinted.
One such that I can find on ADS in full is:

"On the imperturbability of Elevator Operators", Candlestickmaker, S.
(after the style of astrophysicist Chandrasekhar)

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1972QJRAS..13...63C/0000063.000.html


Several others also exist as spoofs/in jokes published in the style of
various famous theoreticians and journals and have been known to end up
in bound volumes since librarians tend to go by the front covers of the
periodicals and don't actually read the contents.

Another I can vaguely recall was "Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening >>> Gown" and another one that Dirac thought so hilarious he paid to have it >>> published in the exact layout of a specific learned journal.

Random Walk in Science has a few of them in.

One fairly well known fake was "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a
Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" by Alan Sokal submitted
to see if "a leading North American journal of cultural studies" would
publish it. They did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Most scientific papers are published in for-profit journals or
equivalent conference papers. The financial incentive is to accept
most anything fast.

But high prestige journals are worth more than run-of the mill journals,
and careful refereeing is what lets them retain their high prestige.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:16:12 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tun9$3jggb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 9:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:42:59 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Peer review is essential for science. Unfortunately, it’s broken.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/07/peer-review-is-essential-for-science-unfortunately-its-broken/
There's no incentive to fix the system, which was never designed to catch fraud anyway.

It's a book that is designed to appeal to Cursitor Doom and other fans
of fatuous conspiracy theories.

"Science is getting more complex over time and is becoming increasingly
reliant on software code to keep the engine going. This makes fraud of
both the hard and soft varieties easier to accomplish."

One has to wonder how.

yea..
Lots of repeats in science of things that are obviously wrong.
Next generation maybe...

Not that Jan Panteltje can cite any.

Let's start with the endless one-stone babble, space is curved etc etc
Any clown can write formulas that approximate thing observed by some,
but understanding the mechanism is what counts.

Actually Einstein did that, and his relativistic corrections are a
necessary part of the GPS system. His insight into the curvature of >space-time was what made it possible for smarter people than you to >understand what was going on with rather more precision than you can grasp.

vote-on particle, like vote-on some senile or some criminal..

As moronic puns go, this has to be the pits.

Peer review isn't perfect,

depends on who does it.

Usually post-graduate students who can be dragooned into working for
free. My wife did edit a couple of scientific journals at one stage, and >finding referees was a big part of the job.

Earth was flat and at the center of the universe for a long time.

Rather before peer-reviewed journals had been invented.

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/big-history-project/big-bang/how-did-big-bang-change/a/claudius-ptolemy

Ptolemy worked out that the earth was round, not flat, and roughly how
big it was by 165 AD. Aristarchus of Samos had hypothesised that it was
in orbit around the Sun some 350 years earlier, but it took Kepler and
Newton to organise the evidence that made the hypothesis look plausible.

Not only was it very hard to get published, you got burned if your idea conflicted with current religious fanatic leadership.
These day the mantra is 'humans cause glow ball worming' and if you just put that in your paper it passes.

There's a whole industry claiming that humans don't cause global
warming, paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry. Only
dim-wits like you and Cursitor Doom and John Larkin take them seriously

Same for much of that kwantuum stuff...

Try to make sense of spectroscopic data without it.

Same for no life signs have been found outside earth...
http://www.gillevin.com/

He may have persuaded you, but so did Le Sage.

Yep, his model explains a lot.
At least it provides a mechanism, makes predictions about clocks going slower and spectral widening in a 'gravity well' (near a planet)
allows for a new kind of spacedrive, etc etc etc
predicts internal heating of heavely bodies..
explains MOND.
That some mamatician like Fineman could not hack it, his problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

but it
works better than anything else that anybody has come up with. It's very >>> good at cracking down on stuff that is obviously wrong. I haven't
refereed all that many scientific papers, but rejecting the ones that
were obviously wrong was remarkably easy, and took a lot less work than
finding and explaining more subtle errors.

The wrong ones are taken by the masses, like capitalism is the solution...

The obviously wrong ones don't get published - at least not in
peer-reviewed journals. The masses get a lot of their information from
the mass-media, which is more into getting people's attention than it is
into educating them.

Dutch science journalism is a whole lot better than English-language
science journalism, but it clearly hasn't been able to educate you.

Never noticed it.
Lots of cool science programs on German satellite TV every week.
Also on how to make life (as far as they are now).
Interviews with real scientists working on all that stuff, space craft, physics, what not.
Last thing like that in the Netherlands was in the fifties...
Do not see anything like that on the UK satellite.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. >www.norton.com

You need a better anti-virus to clear your misunderstandings

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/07/2024 3:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:16:12 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tun9$3jggb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 9:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:42:59 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

The obviously wrong ones don't get published - at least not in
peer-reviewed journals. The masses get a lot of their information from
the mass-media, which is more into getting people's attention than it is
into educating them.

Dutch science journalism is a whole lot better than English-language
science journalism, but it clearly hasn't been able to educate you.

Never noticed it.

No surprise there.

Lots of cool science programs on German satellite TV every week.
Also on how to make life (as far as they are now).
Interviews with real scientists working on all that stuff, space craft, physics, what not.
Last thing like that in the Netherlands was in the fifties...
Do not see anything like that on the UK satellite.

Selective editing of live interviews with real scientists does produce a
lot of nonsense, and the kind of nonsense that nit-wits like you find seductive.

The kind of science journalist who produce written stuff for the
Volkskrant and the NRC Handelsblad do much better, and much better than
their US and UK equivalents.

Bit over your head, though.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney





--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:44:18 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v75pv6$18l5r$2@dont-email.me>:

On 16/07/2024 3:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:16:12 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tun9$3jggb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 9:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:42:59 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

The obviously wrong ones don't get published - at least not in
peer-reviewed journals. The masses get a lot of their information from
the mass-media, which is more into getting people's attention than it is >>> into educating them.

Dutch science journalism is a whole lot better than English-language
science journalism, but it clearly hasn't been able to educate you.

Never noticed it.

No surprise there.

Maybe build something, your gebakken sandals jive is soo old..

Lots of cool science programs on German satellite TV every week.
Also on how to make life (as far as they are now).
Interviews with real scientists working on all that stuff, space craft, physics, what not.
Last thing like that in the Netherlands was in the fifties...
Do not see anything like that on the UK satellite.

Selective editing of live interviews with real scientists does produce a
lot of nonsense, and the kind of nonsense that nit-wits like you find >seductive.

Now I have worked in broadcasting here in the Netherlands and editing happened right under my nose
exposed to it in shifts from 9 AM in the morning to then end of transmission (about 12 PM in those days),
and so I KNOW a bit more about what was on the 'tube' than most .

The kind of science journalist who produce written stuff for the
Volkskrant and the NRC Handelsblad do much better, and much better than
their US and UK equivalents.

Bit over your head, though.

I never read those,
I do start the morning with the weather radar, news headlines, sciencedaily.com, and often follow the subjects and read the papers,
many of those of 'merrican authors and universities ...
Then I grab arstechnica.com, sometimes space.com... rt.com (for the Russian POV about the US war mongers),
more websites, all before breakfast.
Newspapers and paper magazines like there once were (maybe still are) Elektuur (Elector), CT, ScientificAmarican, wirelessworld, no more paper stuff.
I avoid any site that wants me to subscribe and papers that ask for dollies ($$) to read.
Then after breakfast I study music and play my keyboard, finger exercise if you want,
then check the satellite TV, see about jews committing genocide on Palestinians with US weapons delivered by the US senile leader who also makes war in Europe,
on Al Jazeera, trump being shot on CNN and BBC news and every other news channel..., politics, do some coding sometimes, design stuff...
maybe watch NASA TV...
Today interesting program range on German TV channel ZDF-info: "Von der Keule zur Rakete - Die Geschichte der Gewalt"
Nothing like that or that can come close to ZDF-info on Dutch TV..
And that is not the only cool German channel.

Bill Sloman, Sydney

This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. >www.norton.com

You may need an AI assistant for youe posting and filter
Does AI work upside down?

* click here if you are a humming bean.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/07/2024 1:24 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 Jul 2024 22:44:18 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v75pv6$18l5r$2@dont-email.me>:

On 16/07/2024 3:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:16:12 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tun9$3jggb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 9:56 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 13 Jul 2024 20:42:59 +1000) it happened Bill Sloman >>>>> <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <v6tlo4$3i7qb$1@dont-email.me>:

On 13/07/2024 3:00 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

<snip>

Lots of cool science programs on German satellite TV every week.
Also on how to make life (as far as they are now).
Interviews with real scientists working on all that stuff, space craft, physics, what not.
Last thing like that in the Netherlands was in the fifties...
Do not see anything like that on the UK satellite.

Selective editing of live interviews with real scientists does produce a
lot of nonsense, and the kind of nonsense that nit-wits like you find
seductive.

Now I have worked in broadcasting here in the Netherlands and editing happened right under my nose
exposed to it in shifts from 9 AM in the morning to then end of transmission (about 12 PM in those days),
and so I KNOW a bit more about what was on the 'tube' than most.

But a whole lot less about what it means.

The kind of science journalist who produce written stuff for the
Volkskrant and the NRC Handelsblad do much better, and much better than
their US and UK equivalents.

Bit over your head, though.

I never read those,

Of course not. It is over your head.

I do start the morning with the weather radar, news headlines, sciencedaily.com, and often follow the subjects and read the papers,
many of those of 'merrican authors and universities ...
Then I grab arstechnica.com, sometimes space.com... rt.com (for the Russian POV about the US war mongers),
more websites, all before breakfast.

Russia is still busy trying to invade the Ukraine, which makes them
war-makers rather than war mongers. Russia Today does spread the
propaganda that Putin wants spread, so they are obviously war mongers,
even if you haven't noticed.

Newspapers and paper magazines like there once were (maybe still are) Elektuur (Elector), CT, ScientificAmarican, wirelessworld, no more paper stuff.
I avoid any site that wants me to subscribe and papers that ask for dollies ($$) to read.

You would.

Then after breakfast I study music and play my keyboard, finger exercise if you want,
then check the satellite TV, see about jews committing genocide on Palestinians with US weapons delivered by the US senile leader who also makes war in Europe,
on Al Jazeera, trump being shot on CNN and BBC news and every other news channel..., politics, do some coding sometimes, design stuff...
maybe watch NASA TV...
Today interesting program range on German TV channel ZDF-info: "Von der Keule zur Rakete - Die Geschichte der Gewalt"
Nothing like that or that can come close to ZDF-info on Dutch TV..
And that is not the only cool German channel.

"Cool" in that it holds the interest of a brain damaged geriatric.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydhney


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software. www.norton.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)