Theory of a Mach Efect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1
Quote from: birchoff on 11/08/2015 11:24 pmTheory of a Mach Efect Thruster 2 is now out published in Journal of Modern Physics just like Part 1The Journal of Modern Physics is not a peer-review publication. It is one of 244 publications of SCRIP, a company that makes money by charging people to publish their articles and publishing anything that an author will pay them to publish. It's based in Wuhan, China. In 2012, it accepted for publication a math paper generated by a random text generator (though the paper wasn't actually published because the author refused to pay the fee to have to published).In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing#Controversies
You right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to, as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe. ...
Breaking basic physical laws should be a topic of theoretical physics instead of aerospace engineering.Have anybody asked relevent questions to Stephen Hawking?
... In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.
In other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.
Quote from: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 03:21 pm... In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.Which is the point raised inTheory of Mach Effect Thruster Ithat allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.
Quote from: birchoff on 11/09/2015 03:53 pmQuote from: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 03:21 pm... In fact his computation was false in the case of the actual accelerating expansion of our universe.Which is the point raised inTheory of Mach Effect Thruster Ithat allows them to claim that Energy and Momentum are conserved with the usage of a MET.So Woodward was more than right not to ask any permission of thinking to Hawking !! True discoveries are made by people who believe in their own lights.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/09/2015 04:26 amIn other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind...
Peer review is the gold standard, baby.
itīs important to note that Woodward didnīt got his PhD with something like "History of Barbarian Invasions of Ancient Rome"...it was History of PHYSICS.History yes, but totally related to physics.
Quote from: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 03:58 pmQuote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/09/2015 04:26 amIn other words, having a paper published in any SCRIP publication is meaningless.One of the poorest rationale I have ever read on this forum. When the honest work of thought is replaced by some bureaucratic mechanism of the mind... Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' ― Isaac AsimovPeer review is the gold standard, baby.
Quote from: Mezzenile on 11/07/2015 08:27 amYou right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to, as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe. ...In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.
Quote from: Mezzenile on 11/09/2015 02:29 pmQuote from: Mezzenile on 11/07/2015 08:27 amYou right, it should be made clear what is the definition of an isolated system in the theorem I refer to, as in term of Machian gravitation, at soon as an object is accelerated it seems to interact with the whole universe. ...In fact I have found in the litterature that in General Relativity an isolated system is asymptotically flat and that it has a Minkowski geometry in its asymptotic region.I just noticed the quote in bold and underlined which I have to disagree with. The suggestion that an object accelerated then interacts with the while universe (maybe I am mistaken here) but it seems to smack of instantaneous information transfer ...
That said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.
What I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theories
Quote from: birchoff on 11/09/2015 02:28 pmThat said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.Quote from: birchoff on 11/09/2015 06:33 pmWhat I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theoriesThe issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")
Quote from: Paul451 on 11/10/2015 11:53 pmQuote from: birchoff on 11/09/2015 02:28 pmThat said, the fact that both of these papers are published in the Journal of Modern Physics is not meaningless. Maybe the journal doesn't carry the arbitrarily defined importance as other Journals.Quote from: birchoff on 11/09/2015 06:33 pmWhat I believe there is disagreement on is whether or not it makes sense to publish anything if it is not in a mainstream accepted journal. From my perspective I would say where you publish is less consequential than the fact that you actually put in the effort to document your theoriesThe issue isn't that they made their work public, there are plenty of ways to do that, even if you can't get into a peer-reviewed journal. There's arxiv.org or even just putting a pdf on your own website or google-docs.The concern is that they instead went out of their way to pay to have their work published in a fake journal. JoMP isn't just "non-mainstream" or "arbitrarily unimportant", it's a pretend scientific journal designed to trick people into thinking your work has "been published in a scientific journal".As an analogy: Say you have two people, one person has no higher degree, no doctorates for example. The second person claims a PhD and calls himself "Dr. Surname", but it turns out he merely bought a fake doctorate from a fake "university" operating out of a POBox in Florida. Who would you trust more? The honest, but unqualified; or the deliberate fraud?(It's possible that they simply didn't understand that JoMP was fake. Perhaps responding to spam or fake online reviews for JoMP, and got suckered in. Some people are that naive. But it wouldn't exactly reduce people's skepticism if they have so little connection with genuine academia or science that not one person they knew said, "Uh, that's not actually a real journal...")I find it interesting that more emphasis is being paid to ONE (Papers are also available from ResearchGate and Fearn's academic web page) of the areas that the papers has been made available. Instead of the content of the paper. Have you read the papers? Do you have any respectful criticism about the ideas described in the papers?
maybe that is exactly his point? [...] he only wants to trust papers who were reviewed by other people who can understand and criticize the contents?
No, my point was that publishing in a fake science journal makes you less trustworthy. I thought I explained that pretty clearly.(And I mean fake. Not "non-mainstream" or "non-approved", but fake.)
SCIRP is one of the largest academic Open Access publishers worldwide. Manuscripts submitted to all our journals are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are involved in all manuscripts submitted to our journals. Based on the reviewers comments, a Handling Editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief) is subsequently making a final decision about the way a manuscript needs to be improved.We at SCIRP sincerely invite you to join our peer-review program. By participating you will provide help to authors from all over the world and will supply them with your ideas and suggestions based on your valuable expertise. Your input will certainly improve their papers a lot. On top of that, you also benefit from the experience. You are exposed to the latest research findings, and will certainly mention your volunteer contribution to the scholarly literature as reviewer for SCIRP along with your other scientific achievements.If you are ready to be a volunteer, please submit your CV to [email protected] with email subject: Peer-Reviewer Application. After evaluation we will contact you and let you know where to start.Procedure:(1) Send us your CV;(2) Become a peer-reviewer;(3) Receive manuscripts from us, review the manuscripts, and send back your comments within 5 days.