The Adler Report

[D_Archer]

TPOD Aug 3, 2009

This TPOD was really an eye-opener into the ways of the scientific journals of our time. Who is this Board Member(s)? Why was there no rebuttal on points? Why did he not forward the article to be refereed in the normal process? (not appropiate?), if the article was indeed wrong in its claims (his view), sending it out was risk free.

My only negative is the last mail by Dunning-Davies:

Dear Miss Gillan,

Thank you for your reply. However, I must confess it only serves to bring J. Phys. A into further disrepute, particularly since the apparent correct procedure does not conform to what Professor Drury originally stated. Also, the Board member's comments simply don't stand up, in the same way that Adler's original article doesn't stand up.

I realise none of this is your fault but this attitude by scientific morons makes you wonder why anyone pursues open-minded scientific investigations.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Dunning-Davies.

(emphasis added)

Althoug 'scientific morons' is an apt description, i would rather people this side of the fence refrain from talking this way, it accomplishes nothing.

Kind regards,
Daniel



ps. The members report, discuss:

ID: A/315310/COMBOARD MEMBER'S REPORT

============================
I do not view this article as appropriate for the Journal, and it should not be sent out for normal refereeing. The tone of the article is quite inappropriate, and the article really seems to be attacking Dr Adler's article on the grounds that it received publicity in Scientific American and the American Scientist. The technical criticisms that the current authors bring up against Dr Adler's article are wrong. Dr Adler's key conclusion in his article is the quite proper and perfectly correct statement that that "the mass of earth based dark matter lying between the moon's orbit ... and the LAGEOS orbit ... must be less than 4 x 10^{-9} of the earth's mass, AT A 1-SIGMA CONFIDENCE LEVEL''. (my emphasis) The current authors have set up a "straw man" by systematically ignoring all of Dr Adler's cautionary qualifying statements, and have effectively attacked statements he did not make. This comment is utterly inappropriate for publication.

[StevenJay]

Silly me - When I look at that NASA/UNC image, I keep seeing a rendering of large-scale Birkeland currents (albeit, in a box. . . !?) Either that, or a 3-D monochromatic rendering of a Jackson Pollock painting.

[D_Archer]

Silly me - When I look at that NASA/UNC image, I keep seeing a rendering of large-scale Birkeland currents (albeit, in a box. . . !?) Either that, or a 3-D monochromatic rendering of a Jackson Pollock painting.

Or a closeup of a biological neural network!

[StevenO]

Or a closeup of a biological neural network!

Or a 3D picture of a failed model....

[Grey Cloud]

Or a closeup of a biological neural network!

Or a 3D picture of a failed model....

[mharratsc]

Or a 3D picture of a failed model....

*Rimshot!*

I think that what the scientific world needs is to shed the notion that the only way to publish information is to peer review it through these highly paid, mercenary scientific journals that are out there and come up with their own alternatives.

Face it- everyone knows that those guys follow the funding like sharks follow a blood trail. They are no longer the venues for new ideas. That's apparent even to laymen like myself! A new communications infrastructure needs to be built.

There's tons of social networking venues that could work very well to get information out, and allow the real peers (the scientists themselves) to determine what was for real and what wasn't. I don't think modern-day scientists with access to the World Wide Web need some antique demagogue of a 'board member' or 'editor' determining who gets to speak to the scientific community at large, and who can't. Do they really think they need to 'protect the young scientists and non-scientific public from misinformation' in the Age of the Internet?? If they think John Q. Public is getting his 'science information' from Physics Today or Modern Astronomy, they are seriously deluding themselves.

Science needs a wake-up call, I think. Time to abandon these paperback periodicals of yesteryear and hit the Web. If some crackpot published a paper of pseudo-scientific drivel for review by the networked scientific community at large, he would be subject to the most amazing intellectual flaming ever seen! To think we need 'intellectual chaperones' to tell us what is nonsense and what isn't, in this day and age? Friggin rediculous...

Ok, in all fairness I know I don't understand ALL of the difficulties scientists face with getting stuff 'published and reviewed' and the ramifications thereof, but seriously- if a bunch of civilians can put through faster damage reports & communications in a natural disaster than the US Government by using Twitter and other networking tools, then some really smart scientists should be able to use those same tools to create their own information dissemination-and even peer review system-with very little effort or cost. seriously :\

Mike H.

[StevenO]

Indeed, allow the young geniuses to run free....

The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics

[popster1]

Sad to say, but this attitude of "experts know best" is not limited to physics. After 30 years in research I left the field of biochemistry because I was tired of beating my head against an entrenched oligarchy that equates the value of science with the value of the dollar. In my former field, experimental data is regularly misinterpreted (or ignored altogether) to support the latest financially remunerative explanation on every topic from genetics to drug safety. The combination of the system of refereed journals with the system by which grant money is awarded is as powerful a brake on science as the forces faced by Galileo.

Let's face it folks, the lunatics are running the asylum.

[jjohnson]

The authors of this picture of the day correctly note in their critique (in passing) that, "there could be other forces exerting influences also."
Adler bases part of his arguments on measurement based on the LAGEOS satellite. There were actually 2 of these, I and II, with similar elliptical (near-circular) orbits of roughly 5850 km above Earth's surface. Both satellites spend time twice each orbit in the inner Van Allen radiation belt (VAB) as they traverse the "magnetic equator". The inner VAB plasma torus is largely constituted of heavy H+ ions, while the outer one consists of an electron plasma. These satellites are hollow spheres constructed of brass and aluminum, 600mm in diameter.
At their orbital altitude, atmospheric drag is insignificant, as the expected orbital lifetime was estimated at 8 million years.
If these lightweight metal spacecraft had a voltage potential relative to the inner VAB, was it not possible that there was a possibly significant alteration of their orbits as a result? Also, these satellites' orbital velocity was approximately normal to the protons' velocity in the VAB during transit, which may have added another drag and/or acceleration effect on their orbits. If the effects of repeated accelerations resulted in any errors in the measurements made by utilizing the LAGEOS satellites, those should have been reflected in any uncertainty attributed to those metrics. I have not been able to find any such reports of uncertainties due to any of these effects, although that is not unanticipated. Should LAGEOS orbital uncertainties or anomalies exist, they too should have been discussed in Dr. Adler's paper, as those measurements are part of the basis of his conclusion regarding "dark matter".

JJohnson

[jjohnson]

With Dave Smith's help, I've attached a scaled diagram of the two LAGEOS orbits with the Earth and inner Van Allen torus.