Publishing
Kea always has fascinating posts. Thanks to Kea for encouraging the publishing of these ideas. Progress is being made on a gr-qc article. Though even arxiv has gatekeepers, more and more outlets are becoming available.
Astro.Philica is a new resource. It allows publication of observations and papers without the usual process of peer review. Nigel, Gebar and others, this is something you could use. To demonstrate, I have published a brief observation. When you have digested my 2000 characters, feel free to look around the site.
This observation alludes to a GM =tc^3 solution to the "Faint Young Sun" paradox. The Sun also converts its fuel to energy according to E = mc^2. The upward L/Lo curve is luminosity according to the Standard Solar Model. The green line indicates a level to keep Earth above the freezing point. When c change is factored in, instead of an upward curve the Sun's energy output has been nearly constant. Life on Earth has been able to evolve over billions of years. If c had not changed in the amounts predicted, we would not be around to argue about it.
posted by L. Riofrio at 8:53 PM
9 Comments:
Thanks, Louise!
I heard from Michael Turner last week and varying constants is at the top of his list of things to be investigated.
That's nice! He sounds like a sensible person.
This is an interesting process. Personally, when presented with impressive evidence, I think to myself "now, how can I understand this better?" Of course, it goes without saying that my understanding has many flaws. For instance, I continue to find it impossible to fathom the fact that most vocal people seem to jump to the conclusion that they actually understand things quite well.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi Louise. Thanks for the thought. I know about Philica, but I am not an academic and so I don't qualify.
For you, of course, it was an excellent move, even if only because it allows you to establish precedence. Personally I have solved this problem by submitting a paper to archive.org.
I know, it is totally "unglamorous", but my paper was rejected by arxiv (no endorser), and by IOP and by PhilSci ("they do not publish such kind of material"). You can read about my efforts here and about my decision to use my time more constructively here. Since I am not an academic most probably it will be impossible to be heard. On the other hand, this also means that I am not professionally invested in this, and so I can move in any direction inspiration takes me.
So I decided to content myself with the simple solution of archive.org. I prefer to work on my theory and my site, instead of wasting time trying to find an endorser for arxiv. Of course, any such offer by visitors of my site who are arxiv endorsers would be welcome (OK, don't stand up all at once now :-)).
By the way, the Philosophy of Science PhilShi archive in Pittsburgh has an extensive section on physics, relativity, etc. Perhaps you could try there.
Thanks Kea, Gebar. It is sad when someone posts endless questions which she insists be answered. When they are answered, she doesn't understand the theory and therefore it must be wrong.
It is sad that those who know the least think they know everything. You show a true scientific attitude; if we don't understand nature it is our duty to try and explain it.
Thanks to your support, the arxiv thing should be posted soon. The detractors are getting smaller and smaller.
It is sad when someone posts endless questions which she insists be answered. When they are answered, she doesn't understand the theory and therefore it must be wrong.
I hope you have seen my last comment on your "theory" under the other post entry.
Louise, if you really want to be serious on the scientific activity, then you do have to expect many many questions about your "theory". Do you think people will accept it without questioning? Have you considered the possibility that *you* could be wrong? How can you be so sure you are really answering all questions correctly?
It is sad that those who know the least think they know everything.
Why not apply this possibility to yourself?
Best,
Christine
HI Christine, and I am glad that you have contributed to the discussion. I was not saddened by YOUR questions, just as you were not calling me a John Baez specimen. I don't feel that we know everything, nor do I enjoy Court TV. It is a step forward when people ask about GM = tc^3 rather than dismiss it outright.
No one should go around claiming that c is slowing unless she can show it both mathematically and experimentally. It is comforting that you hold me to a higher standard than you do some string theorists. If you want people who think they know it all, search map.gsfc.nasa.gov. I enjoy your questions and will answer them as time provides.
Wow!
Really smart, creative, AND Sexy Too!
Now that is science at it's best!
God Bless America!
Keep up the good work Kea!
WWW0620
audemars piguet watches
uggs outlet
simulation shoes
cheap mlb jerseys
nike presto
canada goose outlet
longchamp outlet
reebok trainers
timberwolves jerseys
a bathing ape
Post a Comment
<< Home