Re: How did Einstein get published?

On Sep 28, 12:09 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
"Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1190973182.655319.147020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 27, 4:15 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm really thinking about Androcles as I write this,
but I invite all of the anti-Einsteinians to contribute.
[snip]
I freely admit that my hope is to see a whole bunch
of wacky statements in one place. Hopefully both
sides will get plenty of amusement from the exchange.

[snip Juan's usual rant]

Sure Dirk sure I sound your alerts...

It is interesting you also deleted *without commenting* references i
cited. Do not worry i add they again below giving you a second try.

E.g. the ArXiv page [2] containing dozens of plagiarized works on
General relativity and cosmology...

You avoid about the plagiarized _General Relativity and Gravitation_,
Vol 39 (2007) 849-862 passing peer-review...

You avoid the physics today article explaining how confused and angry
Einstein was when peer-reviewed by the first time [3]...

Of course, Dirk, you will avoid comment here that Randy was not right
when he *supposed* that Einstein 1905 papers were peer-reviewed. They
were not. First time Einstein found peer-review policy was so latter
like 1936.

Yes, it may be hard for your Dirk and maybe for Randy, but it means
that since 1905 until 1936, Einstein never published in peer-review
literature!

Of course, you also avoid to comment Einstein first reviewed paper was
rejected because being wrong. You can avoid how wrong Einstein was and
how right the referee was, knowing more about relativity and waves
than Einstein did.

Of course, you also avoided to comment on recent Nature article,
explaining that in 1905 it was customary to publish almost anything
revolutionary, even when contradicting stablished theories [5]:

{BLOCKQUOTE
in journals in those days, the burden of proof was generally on the
opponents rather than the proponents of new ideas.
}

I will explain you in plain message:

In 1905, You were assumed to be right unless a Newtonian proved you
wrong.

In 2007, It is just contrary. You are assumed to be wrong unless you
can prove *all* relativists wrong.

It is more, if referee A says "This theory is fine" and referee B says
"This theory may be wrong", probably the Editor will reject the paper
because political and economical reasons. Because impact factors
issues editors prefer not publish polemic papers even if no referee
find mistakes.


[2] http://arxiv.org/new/withdrawals.aug.07.html

[3] http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-9/p43.html

[4] http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/archivefreedom/main.html

[5] http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/425645a


Excellent catch, Randy.
Juan spent a LOT of time here ;-)

Wow! Fine criticism.

Dirk Vdm



==========================================================
Note for readers]
Because some past episodes of flamming in sci.physics.relativity, both
comments in my blog and my newsgroup e-mail are disabled.

Note for Bilge, Bill Hobba, Dono (once Karandash2), Eric Gisse, and
Tim Shuba]
Avoid to reply this message. The capacity of any human for correcting
your endless conceptual nonsenses and foolish mathematical mistakes
is, unfortunately, just finite. Also my occupations do not include to
teach you to read others, not to teach you dimensional analysis or
even pre-university physics.

Since you will be sanely ignored here in thereafter you are open to
misread, misquote, or misinterpret me in any way you want, specially
when that adds some light to your grey existence. You are open to
write any triviality; to invent any mistake I did not really did. You
can cite discredited, outdated, or wrong references. You can
manipulate or misread references. You are also open to address any
insult you consider supports your points and you can, of course,
extend your insults to any poster, institution, colleague, friend,
theories, or journal discrediting you.

You can also try to falsify ratings, voting against me dozens or
several hundred of times simulating different people. You can use the
same dishonest tactic for increasing the rating of your akins.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Theory of gravity
    ... greywolf42 wrote: ... > You mean you want us to avoid SR (where Einstein used visualization, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: point of trivia
    ... (was: Re: Confession time) ... comedy writer/actor Albert Brooks's real last name is Einstein. ... he changed it to avoid being confused with that other dude. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • point of trivia
    ... (was: Re: Confession time) ... comedy writer/actor Albert Brooks's real last name is Einstein. ... he changed it to avoid being confused with that other dude. ...
    (misc.writing)