Re: error in mathematics behind black holes

karandash2...@xxxxxxxxx ha escrito:

cafei...@xxxxxxx wrote:



However, in this case, his papers consist only of mathematical and
logical arguments. The question at hand is "are these arguments valid?"
It doesn't matter who the writer is or what journal the paper appears
in in such a case.



Wrong. "Regress in Physics" is well known for publishing crank papers
ONLY.

Therefore you developed paranormal capabilities for judging and
dismishing works that you have not even read!

Having a paper appear in "Regress in Physics" (like
Apeiron,Galilean Electrodynamics,Hadronic Physics, Physics Letters A,
Physica Scripta) and many others is WORSE than having the paper not
published at all. It is a stamp of crackpottery.

Fortunately, we can find a more rational attitude from the AMERICAN
PHYSICAL SOCIETY site [1]:

"The impact factor, a numerical score that claims to rank the
importance of scientific journals, may be resulting in unnecessary
pressure on researchers to publish in journals with high values for
that score."

"In fact, Blume says he makes a point of trying not to pay attention to
the impact factor."

"Blume and others are more concerned that in some cases hiring and
tenure committees or funding agencies may use the impact factor
inappropriately as a way to evaluate individual researchers. "There
is no quantitative metric of excellence. High impact factor journal
publication is not a measure of excellence of the individual," said
Blume."

"They believe some universities may simply look at the impact factors
of journals they've published in, rather than carefully review the
individual's work."


Good and bad articles are published elsewhere, sure. Probably you will
find journals that in an AVERAGE sense are better or look better than
others. I could accept if you claim some journals are in average much
better than others (nobody doubt that) but from _average_ behavior one
_cannot_ predict the behavior of each _individual_, in an _absolute_
way as you are claiming.

"This paper is wrong _because_ was published in a bad journal" does not
work. As does not work its inverse: "this paper is correct _because_
was published in Science".


[1] http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200604/impact.cfm

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: I just wrote a work e-mail that included
    ... reasons to be concerned about those groups of scientists as well as ... demanding different referees for your papers, ... the peer-reviewed journals. ... If Climate Research starts publishing papers that ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Is the Electron Charge really infinite
    ... formal publication any more, ... so no one could prevent my publishing my findings and ... there has been a steady trickle of ether/aether papers in mainstream physics journals. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the ... publishing copyrighted standards and journals. ... The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: I just wrote a work e-mail that included
    ... reasons to be concerned about those groups of scientists as well as ... demanding different referees for your papers, ... the peer-reviewed journals. ... once was for publishing certain types of ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: "This work is garbage,"
    ... With regard to physics, anyway, I disagree. ... My guess, though, is that these are mostly irrelevant papers rather ... Irrelevant papers don't tend to wind up in prominent journals, ... That's the beauty of crap journals. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)