Thursday, July 16, 2009

Archives: against

Independent geniuses such as Tony Smith, Jack Sarfatti, and many others who have penetrated much deeper to the "mainstream" have complained about the "censorship" - normally known as "quality control" and "peer review" - in the printed journals as well as Paul Ginsparg's

Even seemingly conventional physicists such as Tommaso Dorigo have complained about the very existence of quality control.

Now, they have the opportunity they have always needed. Instead of, they may submit their papers to (click).
Yes, it is the same word backwards. The creator of, Philip Gibbs, has stolen much of the technology and design from to create the illusion that it is the same thing. But if two people are doing the same thing, it is not always the same thing.

In the HEP section, there are so far four papers. One was written by Yuri Danoyan - who claims the everything in the Universe must come in the 3:1 ratio (three spatial dimensions per one time, three warm seasons for one winter, three women for one man, etc.). Tony Smith offers two new games in a town of surfer dudes. Finally, Barry Adams invents a new kind of electromagnetic U(1) specifically for neutrinos. ;-)

As you can see, the quality is excellent :-), and I urge all the critics of physics, self-described seers, their female and male disciples, all surfer dudes, and all foes of the quality control in science to join their friends and their true peers and to choose the new "uncensored" resource and get out of the world of actual scientists at last. We will see whether the old-fashioned "censored" or their new "uncensored" method to do science will lead to more convincing results.

If you don't know the answer is, it says that the elimination of wrong hypotheses is the #1 most essential procedure in the whole scientific method.

Via Physics World.


  1. That's at the same time hilarious and disgusting. Once I saw a writing of this Tony Smith (that btw puts a ridicule Jr. in the middle) and the guy is simply schizophrenic.

  2. No point making personal attacks. I confess I cannot understand Tony Smith's papers. Too much math like epicycles without any coherent narrative, no physical picture.

  3. kea noticed that too. I was going to design a logo based on the observation but had second thoughts :)

  4. Rejecta Mathematica also published it's first issue. Is this sort of development a reflection of the poor quality of the peer review process or what?

    Atleast I like the idea of Rejecta Mathematica.

  5. You're right that elimination of wrong hypothesis is essential to science. ViXra is needed because is none ever gets to see the strange ideas laid out in vigour, no one will shoot down those ideas, i've yet to have a proper shooting down of my idea to give neutrinos a U(1) axial interaction, (not a entirely new idea), and that won't happen if one reads it.

  6. An archive repository is a tool which one is supposed to use as such, and without waiting for more out of it. It's not a journal. ArXiv has had in his history many archives (not papers!) which were withdrawn, proving that the quality is not 100% there.

    Arxiv is meant to be a transitory step prior to the peer-reviewing process. The problem with arxiv is that they have installed a pre-peer-reviewing process, which is absurd regarding its original aim.

    What if tomorrow someone at arXiv finds you do no longer fit with their quality criteria? What if they say: Excellence is made by American people, Czechmen are no longer allowed? There are many ways by which a physicist can get professionnally killed even if he is competent in his field, simply for jealousy or whatever.

    There are a lot of weird things in viXra, but the tool now exists; it is complementary to arXiv.


  7. Dear Jerome,

    I also appreciate Viagra or what's the name for providing crackpots with a great place to publish in a way that looks almost identical to the arXiv.

    Well, but if two people are doing the same thing, it's sometimes not quite the same thing. ;-)

    The filtering on the arXiv is based on the quality, not the nationality, and the fact that it's been done by Paul Ginsparg and his staff rather than generic "peers" is just a technicality. What's important is that it has worked pretty well, at least for those nearly 2 decades. Paul Ginsparg has arguably been a more competent "filterman" than an "average peer".

    But if you erased all Czech papers from the arXiv (and banned future ones?), that would mean to lose not more than a dozen or two dozens of papers that are valuable enough to be worth talking about for more than a year, and let's admit that a visibly nonzero fraction of them would be mine.

    So when you look at the actual numbers, it wouldn't really be a serious problem to filter "Czechmen" from the arXiv.


  8. vixra is crap. it is an insult to the scientific community. but it is really good that the crackpots have their own website to post their crappy stuff. good article though. you all should see the new article on neutrinos, its what i prefer to call "Detailed Crap"

  9. As an outsider just reading in the last month or so about all of these crackpot accusations, I see the vixra/arXiv distinction as good for us non-cognoscenti. Vixra's about page admits it does no quality control so I know if I browse it I'm on my own for value judgments. Rejecta Mathematica I believe describes its value as being a mirror or that you can learn a lot about a business by looking in its dumpster.

    It also makes sense to give the rejected people some gratification or appeasement, especially if the proper science types look down on vixra. Everybody wins, it would seem.

    On a related note: biologists sometimes spend significant amounts of time (that could be devoted to research) explaining to the general public the many reasons we know evolution to be true or Young Earth theory to be false. This is arguably a good thing.