NavList:

   

Reply

Frank wrote:

"speaking of degenerating physics, and I apologize for
being way off-topic now (e-mail me off-list if this interests you), did
anyone  see the stories recently about a discovery of "antigravity" in a
"new solution" of the field equations of general relativity?? holy cow, any
incompetent twit can claim to be a physicist today! 

Physicist!  Good idea, I've been looking for work by trying to find a
village without an idiot ;-)

I was not aware of antigravity.  As a layman, it would appear things are a
bit out of hand.  At least with the Sokal "Affair" the wool was pulled over
the eyes of a humanities publication.  Some have referred to the Bogdanov
brothers' publication as a reverse Sokal hoax, Some call the work brilliant.

"Bogdanov brothers deny bogosity. And we believe 'em - but only in
even-numbered universes."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/05/bogdanov_brothers_deny_bogosity/

"The Bogdanovs' credentials to write on cosmology are based on Ph.D. degrees
they obtained from the University of Bourgogne; Grichka Bogdanov received
his degree in mathematics, and Igor Bogdanov received his in theoretical
physics. Although there were issues related to the comprehensibility of
their theses, they graduated conditionally upon publishing in journals that
were respected in their fields. When later challenges to the legitimacy of
the work arose, the debate spread to the question of whether the
substitution of a "publication requirement" by university professors when
they do not understand students' work is a valid means of determining the
veracity of a paper. However, the intrinsic complexity of topics like
quantum groups and topological field theory (as well as the growth of
excessive jargon used by those who study these areas) makes it difficult to
avoid such delegation, since often specific expertise is necessary in order
to fully understand and evaluate the claims made in papers in these fields."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair

It's pretty bad when your professors and peers can't determine whether your
work is a refreshing new view or an incomprehensable string of inbred
jargon.

Bill

   

Reply