And yet, just a bit earlier in this very thread:jjohnson wrote:As noted above and lots of other threads locally, we don't present a lot of academic theory grounded in advanced math, even including "classical" physics of electromagnetism, even though that's there and well-known. We don't generally have any published papers at all, as few here try to publish papers, and even fewer editors would find such efforts publishable.
Antecedents are few in a new paradigm, if you don't count contributions from Maxwell, Faraday, Volta, Tesla, Birkeland, and those other scientists who had to be published in "less rigorously reviewed" journals such as IEEE, ...
There are, as we all know, papers by Scott and by Thornhill published in IEEE journals, so we can use those to get answers to questions about these matters. In fact, I've started doing some research on this, and what I've found so far is both fascinating and disturbing.davesmith_au wrote:It is incorrect to characterize the IEEE journals as "less rigorously reviewed". If anything, it is more difficult to get published in the IEEE than most any other journal. You only need ask those who have had papers published there. That it is "less rigorously reviewed" is one of the myths perpetrated by those who wish to dismiss content therefrom.
Well, I wouldn't say they are designed to do that, but yes I do ask rather a lot of questions, don't I?jjohnson wrote:And from a quantitative sense, you have a long litany of asking questions about sources and explanations and substantiations of ideas being expressed, which is designed to make us see our deficiencies.
FWIW, I have the impression that many, perhaps most, of the questions I've been asking have been asked before. Some are to be found in older threads in this forum, and some in the wider, wild internet, where someone has written something about EU theory (typically a discussion forum or a blog), and it's generated a response (yes, Mike, you need to tune out the emotions and focus on the content). Curiously, there have been few substantive answers.
You are most welcome, and thanks too to you, for your even, lengthy, and well-written posts.Thanks for your even tone, by the way. It can keep discussions going.
Sure thing. However, I must say that, so far, there'd be little point in any of that. Why? Because there seems - to me - to be a much greater need for internal logical consistency, together with a much more rigorous adherence to adequately documenting and citing sources, checking for independent validations and verifications, that sort of thing.Please try to be helpful occasionally and point to an article or book or other source that you have thought, "this might support that other viewpoint and they don't even know it." I'd appreciate that, for one.