Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
Sorry?! No case at all can be made that I intended the PDF to be considered as being within the explanatory tradition of peer-reviewed papers. The "explanatory tradition" I was referring to was the publication of vulgarised scientific documents on the Internet, for the information of the layman. To prove the matter, Nereid found it herself on the Internet.
|
Thank you for the clarification (though I'll leave it to readers to form their own opinions on whether a case could be made that you had intended - perhaps unwittingly - to put the T&T document into the explanatory tradition of academic research, such as that common at international conferences on plasma physics (in the 21st century).
Quote:
|
As regards the apparent origin of the document es having being initially written for a "poster presentation" at the IEEE's 33rd ICOPS, several points should be made, since a very large part of the case being made out for invalidation the contents of the document seems to rest on the alleged misrepresentation committed by Thornhill and Talbott. The reasoning is presumably that if they need to give fake credentials to the document, then its content must necessarily be worthless.
|
Of course, you may choose to interpret what I wrote in any way you wish.
However, for avoidance of doubt, the ten post critique I posted earlier in this thread has several components, two of which are:
* treating the document as a poster at the 2006 ICOPS, within the context and explanatory tradition of such posters
* presenting a
prima facie case that there is something fraudulent about the document, and that T&T are being intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
Nereid has demonstrated that T&T's "poster presentation" does not figure in the conference's official schedule of poster presentations. What is interesting to note, however, after searching in a little more depth, is that at least Wallace Thornhill's presence at, and active participation in, the conference cannot be doubted. The schedule of "oral sessions" lists Thornhill as presenting a 30 minute talk on "THE PLASMA Z-PINCH MORPHOLOGY OF SUPERNOVA 1987A AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SUPERNOVA REMNANTS" and as being co-author with CJ Ransom of a second paper, "LABORATORY REPRODUCTION OF POSSIBLE SOLAR SYSTEM PLASMA EFFECTS" presented by Ransom. The two papers figure in the conference proceedings. One last detail: Thornhill's 30 minute talk had the status of an "invited paper", according to the ICOPS rules on "Oral & Poster format". Not bad for an alleged impostor.
I think this sheds a rather different light on the matter. As regards the "Poster presentation" PDF, I think it's time to stop being too falsely naive. Many readers of this thread will have attended major conferences (in whatever field, not just in astronomy). We all know that alongside the official events, there are also less official ones which are perfectly well accepted, not to say encouraged, by the organisers - that's also what gives added life and interest to this sort of conference. In a completely different field, it's a bit like the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, devoted to more experimental art forms, which perfectly well coexists with and complements the Edinburgh International Festival devoted specifically to classical music, opera and theatre. At most major conferences I've attended, in addition to the official poster boards, there was also space for less formal contributions, often last minute after-thoughts. (Note that the "Electric Comet" PDF has nothing directly to do with Thornhill's two "official" contributions). It so happens also that Thornhill and Talbott share many of the same fields of interest as Anthony Peratt, one of the most eminent current fellows of the IEEE. One of their most recent forms of collaboration was on the "Thunderbolts of the Gods" video I've already referenced. I wasn't present at the ICOPS conference so I don't know exactly how things were organized but it's not difficult to imagine that Thornhill was allowed or invited to post the ECM PDF outside the framework of the published schedule. Would that make him an impostor and thereby invalidate per se the ideas presented?
|
Nice try.
However, even with respect to just the second of the two components I summarised above ("
presenting a prima facie case that there is something fraudulent about the document, and that T&T are being intellectually dishonest"), it comes across as extraordinarily weak.
For example, the conventions for posters at ICOPS, and international plasma physics conferences, are relatively easy to obtain. The fact that Thornhill was there (thanks for the confirmation,
ATKINS), and at earlier ICOPS - together with the objective nature of those conventions - rather adds to the
prima facie case, don't you think?
Note too
ATKINS' elision 'intellectual dishonesty' and 'fraudulent document' -> "
an alleged impostor" (and complete silence on Talbott).
In respect of the first component ("
treating the document as a poster at the 2006 ICOPS, within the context and explanatory tradition of such posters"), the part of
ATKINS' post that I quote above is mute.
So, back to
the central question, asked of
ATKINS,
VanderL, and
Luxor numerous times in this thread (and asked many times in older threads on the electric comet ATM idea):
Please provide references to papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, where details of this "ECM" may be found.
Alternatively, please present "[t]he model" (the ECM) in quantitative form, here in BAUT's ATM section. Please pay particular attention to presenting it in a form other than the conventions/tradition of "vulgarizetion of complex scientific theory".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jim
If you have new information to present, it is possible you could start a new thread about that new information only. We'd have to see.
|
My suggestion: unless and until a BAUT member can present the ECM, in quantitative form, in either a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal or directly, BAUT's ATM section should no longer be used for promotion of this idea.
I'm interested to know what other readers of this post think of my suggestion.