RE: peer review

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "David Thomson" <dwt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Brett,

> Until then, the people who are thinking critically are
> helping you.  It's peer review and is essential to scientific
> progress.  It is much of what differentiates science from
> religeon.  You won't find them engaging in debate over
> whether God exists or not...it is just accepted.  There you
> will find dogma and a firm establishment which is resistant
> to challenge and questioning.  Not so in science.  But your
> theory won't last long if you shelter it from the error
> correcting machinery which is  essential to the scientific
process.

I appreciate your noble sounding words.  But let's get past the
philosophizing and get down to the science.  I have performed an
experiment, developed a theory, and wrote a book on the theory.
I am offering plenty of material for the peer review process to
work with.  Where's the beef?

BTW, I do have a paper being prepared for a physics journal.  Two
members of this list have seen it, lest there be doubt about the
genuine-ness of my statement.  Right now, I am waiting for a
Cambridge PhD physicist to finish previewing the 18 page paper.
He is giving it a thorough examination, both for style and
content.

Also, use common sense.  You haven't seen my theory in either of
the two "nag"azines you mentioned.  For now, that's just as good
as being published in Science or Nature.  Until my theory gets
genuine peer review, it could only be dismissed on religious or
dogmatic grounds.  I've said all along that all I want is to have
my work reviewed.  If it is flawed, so be it.  One PhD physicist
reviewed the theory and said:

"It is clear that the author has studied many aspects of modern
physics - including its history and philosophy. The highly
original ideas formulated in this work are clearly the fruits of
many years of serious study and reflection. We live in an age in
which values, worldviews, and politics are changing at
unmanageably fast rates. Each day brings not only fresh and
unexpected news, but also revolutionary ideas and perspectives
whose impacts no one can foresee. I see this book in this
context. Not everyone will agree or accept everything stated in
this book. But the book certainly deserves careful attention
before passing judgment on it." - V.V. Raman, PhD Physics,
Professor Emeritus, Rochester Institute of Technology

Keep in mind, I am only requesting peer review from this group,
not demanding it.  I gave my little speech based upon my personal
experience with this group and to support others with the same
experience.  But I also dutifully acknowledged that it is not my
place to demand peer review here.  The list is moderated by
Terry.  This list can be used for whatever purposes Terry sees
fit, and for whatever reason.  He has made it clear just
recently, and in the past, that this list is NOT for new
theories.  I am perfectly content to respect his wishes.  The
intent of my speech on the closed-mindedness of this group, and
pointing out the old man mentality, was to help some people to
see themselves from the views of others on this list.  For all
the talk of the scientific method being practiced here, I see
only hypocrites (with the exception of Marco, so far).  That is
all.  I didn't mean to drag my theory to the examination table.
I'm just being a skeptic toward the false nobility, which is
being pontificated here.

Dave