If the calculations I did are correct, why does it matter whether or not I understand the rest of the model?
Because perhaps you don't understand the model and physics nearly as well as you think you do. Afterall, none of the peer reviewers caught what you and sol claim is an obvious flaw ... even to someone with high school physics. Were they just dumb? And IF the peer review process broke down in such an dramatic fashion where Peratt's work was concerned and on such an important subject, don't you think we should try to understand why it did? Instead of just ignoring that it did?
And if they aren't correct, why don't you point out why they're not correct?
I don't claim to be an expert on this subject. I've published nothing in a peer reviewed journal on this subject. Have you? Peratt did. In several different journals, in fact. He presented the material at conferences, too, where other scientists and engineers could directly ask him questions. Was no one in the audience as smart as you and sol? Did it take almost 30 years for someone with your intellect to appear on earth?
But plenty of papers get published on what are essentially toy models
But in those other cases, there is always someone pointing out in print where those models are flawed. We don't see that happening in this case. And I don't think its at all fair to describe Peratt's model (which you admit you haven't bothered to fully understand) a toy model. Afterall, it's a model that took months of supercomputer time to produce results.
with little direct connection to the physical world
That's a truly ironic statement coming from someone who:
- believes in matter of a dark kind that is unlike any we currently know and which shows its presence only in a ghostly manner
- someone who believes in dark energy, which is even more ghostly and ill defined than dark matter
- someone who believes that black holes (which also have never been directly observed) are ubiquitous in space and uses them to explain a multitude of observations that otherwise can't be explained
- someone who believes in stars made of neutrons and quarks
- someone who believes astrophysics is justified in creating utterly new physics like reconnection (which many in the fields of electrical engineering and plasma physics have now completely rejected as bogus) to explain the observations they can't otherwise explain ... while ignoring physics like Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches that are well understood and quite obviously present in space ... and which might easily explain some of those observations.
- someone who believes redshift ALWAYS equates to distance despite a still growing mountain of evidence to the contrary ... peer reviewed evidence that again the mainstream community simply ignores rather than trying to directly challenge in peer reviewed rebuttals.
- someone who believes in that mysterious event called *inflation* and uses it to explain away a host of observation problems ... even though the cause of that event is still unknown 30 years after the idea was introduced.
I don't think Peratt is the one out of touch with the physical world, Ziggurat.
Quote:
If that happened, why didn't the publishing journal offer an apology to its readers when the failure of their peer reviewers to catch the obvious was noticed?
Because that's not the way journals operate. They retract papers in the case of misconduct or fraud, but if the paper is merely wrong (even pathetically so), they don't appologize.
So they sort of cover up their mistakes. Is that the way these science journals function? We learn something new all the time, don't we folks.
But even if a journal doesn't apologize for an obviously poor peer review, it will publish letters from its readers that point out the obvious flaw in the work. Right? So in the case of Peratt's work, can you link us to any letters that pointed out this flaw you've discovered? Or did that flaw just go undiscovered by the readers too ... until *you* came along?
The only person I have confidence I'm far smarter than is you.
But I'm not putting my smarts up against yours. I'm putting Peratt's (and that Nobel Prize winner ... Alfven's). Both of whom actually have published in peer reviewed journals.
