Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
Where's the problem? This is precisely just one example of the infighting which is endemic to the peer-review process. It concerns minor adjustments to a failing theory. You are presumably aware that the very notion of "magnetic reconduction" is regarded by electrical engineers as an attempt made by non-specialists in electrical engineering to try to account for observations which their insufficient training in the field doesn't enable them to understand or accept. The case is put quite clearly here, in the Thunderbolts article "The Myth of Magnetic Reconnection". |
What infighting? I am stating here that theories that are not the general accepted mainstream theory are published! One of the more interesting things is that I am co-author on papers on both sides of the divide.
The new generation of space physicists are much easier than the old generation. I count myself to the "new" generation, because I entered the field not too long ago, even though I am already 44. The younger generation does not hold as much to "either/or" but look in a more including way to things. I will not into too much detail, but basically a lot of the "older" generation is very strict, and fortunately a lot of them are retiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
|
Donald Scott, an older retired physicist is just as narrow viewed as the "mainstreamers" that you are complaining about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
Presumably because even mainstream astronomy is starting to be dragged kicking and screaming towards eventual grudging acceptance of the true, overriding role of electricity in the universe. Congratulations for being among the front-runners. I just hope that when the EU case has finally been confirmed and accepted as "something we knew all along", the true pioneers of the whole theory will be given the recognition they deserve. But knowing how "That is the way it works in the real world" (to quote your concluding sentence) I very much doubt it...
|
NO, it is because ATMers here do not read real journals, but only look at websites that are "dumbed down for the masses" and naturally don't have any math, because who cares about math, not the masses, they could care less about math.
The "EU case" is just an exaggeration of what plasma physics in the cosmos can do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
I'm sure sure he or she will, otherwise his or her paper will obviously have no more chance of being published than an ATM paper. But what does this teach us about the ethics of the whole thing in addition to what I've already said? Because the ones who don't are considered "dishonest"? Could you explain why? You seem to be proving my point.
|
No, she will not be dishonest. Actually, it can be very good for a paper to have an "adversary" as a referee, because she can point you to weaknesses in your theory that you are blind to, because you "know too much about the topic." I for one am always very glad when I get strict referees for my papers, because inevetably they improve the paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATKINS
Is this your "real world", tusenfem, where "Math rules", as you once told me in this post in the "Electric Comet" thread? It should be, because it's apparently also a product of the pure maths which dreamt up the Big Bang and all the physical impossibilities which are needed to shore it up. |
I believe in physics, and the language of physics is math, there is just no way around it. I make observations in the laboratory, and I use electrodynamics and plasma physics theory to see what these observations mean. That is one way.
The other way is that I read in e.g. Treumann & Baumjohann about the mirror mode instability in magnetosheaths. They give a very good theoretical description of what should happen at the bow shock. Then I move to the Venus Express data (the project I am working on at the moment) and look for these kind of waves, and what do I find? I find that indeed as predicted from theory, at quasi-perpendicular bow shock conditions these waves occur with a very high rate. Whereas for quasi-parallel conditions the occurrence rate for these waves is much much lower, as expected.
The fact that you feel insecure about math, which you probably did not like at school, shows from the degrading comments you make about it. If it were not for math, the by you so-much adored electrical engineers would not be able to build anything without blowing it up.