Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP
From: Eugene Shubert (http://www.everythingimportant.org)
Date: 12/03/04
- Next message: Eros: "Re: GOD=G_uv GOD FOR DUMMYS"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- In reply to: Creighton Hogg: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:40:55 -0600
"Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412021329140.17865-100000@erodium.hep.wisc.edu...
>
> In any case, I think claiming a large representation is less
> egomaniacal than claiming to have discovered the "most
> entertaining exploit in physics history". It's the "in physics
> history" that is rather silly. Who are you to judge what the
> greatest, most enlightening, or even entertaining
> achievements in the history of physics are?
It is usually the case that when experts hear of a wild or impossible
sounding idea and they examine it, the new idea is easily proven
wrong. By definition, a thesis is truly astounding and revolutionary
if it is too outrageous to be true, or if it's widely believed by
experts to be too contemptible for review, yet is true anyway.
Tom Roberts is the recognized authority around here. Do you
agree with his assessment?
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3437#3437
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3441#3441
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3451#3451
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3452#3452
You don't agree with Tom. There is no consistent consensus among
physicists on this newsgroup, except for their ignorant ranting and
confusion about mathematical reasoning.
Mathematicians are unanimous. Mathematicians agree with me.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&selm=419638ea@sys13.hou.wt.net
Note that the tone of what Jan Tobochnik said, cited in email, is that
extracting a Lorentzian transformation from the Galilean
transformation is not remarkable at all.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
- Next message: Eros: "Re: GOD=G_uv GOD FOR DUMMYS"
- Previous message: Tom Roberts: "Re: Building a Light Clock"
- In reply to: Creighton Hogg: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: The Process of Peer Review at AJP"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
