4 ms·

> Which journal was it published exactly, and what is "well before"? You're linking to a generic PDF file served in his personal site, which answers none of tho

by privong 10y ago

> Which journal was it published exactly, and what is "well before"? You're linking to a generic PDF file served in his personal site, which answers none of those questions. I wasn't able to find a journal, but his website (and the pdf) have May 2013 for the dates. The same person appears to have given talk with a similar title at a conference in 2010[0]. But, if it wasn't published in a journal, it's tough to insist that someone else in the community should know about it. He does seem to have a few peer-reviewed publications[1], though they're all from the 1970's. > Edit: I'm ready to bet he's a crackpot http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/ http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/ > "Principle of an EM Cancer Detector" > "Apparitions and Miracles of the Sun" Yes, the titles seem crackpot-ish, but if you look at the abstracts, they seem a bit more reasonable. I don't know enough about human tissue to comment on the "EM Cancer Detection" paper but recall that MRI's use radio waves and CT scans use X-rays to detect cancers, both thus employ EM waves. So I'm not comfortable discarding it solely on the basis of its title. However, the abstract of the second one you mention seems to be a reasonable study of possible origin of phenomena reported by other people: This extensive study of “miracles of the sun” leads to the conclusion that they can be explained by means of natural physiological processes, while “apparitions” are related to altered states of conscience. [0] http://q-mag.org/abstracts-of-papers-on-ball-lightning-presented-at-ais-2010-atmosphere-ionosphere-safety-conference-in-kaliningrad.html http://q-mag.org/abstracts-of-papers-on-ball-lightning-prese... [1] https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_property%7D&fq_property=(property%3Arefereed)&q=author%3A%22%5EMeessen%2C%20a%22&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#search/fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%...

tagrun 10y ago
> I wasn't able to find a journal, Why am I not surprised? > He does seem to have a few peer-reviewed publications... ...in no-name journals. > But, if it wasn't published in a journal, it's tough to insist that someone else in the community should know about it. In fact, if it wasn't published in a respectable journal, it's tough to take it seriously. Especially when it's coming from a guy who's talking about UFOs and miracles in "scientific" context. No, thanks. I'm not going to waste any of my time convincing people he is a crackpot in myriad ways. Edit: Since I can't reply to the reply below, I write it here: yes, that is the definition of a no-name journal. A physics journal with impact factor 1 is not a respectable journal. A non-respectable journal doesn't mean its contents are crack-pottery, where did you even get that? Crackpots with PhD have a few valid works, usually from old times, given that they got a PhD under some (presumably) normal scientist and maybe did a few postdocs here and there.
- privong 10y ago
  > ...in no-name journals. Foundations of Physics isn't a high-prestige, cutting-edge journal, but it's also not a crackpot journal. It seems to be a respectable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics Edit: > A non-respectable journal doesn't mean its contents are crack-pottery, where did you even get that? What? I never said that. I'm not saying the guy is not a crackpot. I'm just not willing to say he is, based only on paper titles and 2-sentence abstracts that can be interpreted multiple ways. > Especially when it's coming from a guy who's talking about UFOs and miracles in "scientific" context. I think you're drawing too sweeping conclusions from just titles and 2-sentence abstracts. It is possible to talk about UFOs and miracles in a scientific context in a reasonable way; e.g., by discussing whether reported phenomena are optical illusions or internal mental constructions. That's seeing to understand things other people report as reasonable processes. Of course, I agree that people can also purport to discuss these things scientifically while spewing bullshit. However, I can't tell from just the titles and abstracts which of those two things he is doing. I'd have to read the text of the papers to determine that. Absent less ambiguous information (and the time/willingness to read what he's written), I'm just not willing to condemn someone I know little to nothing about as a crackpot. If you've read the papers and have still come to the the conclusion that he's a crackpot, I'd certainly buy it. But, with the limited information I have, I have no real opinion about the guy or his work.
  - tagrun 10y ago
    >> ...in no-name journals. > Foundations of Physics isn't a high-prestige, cutting-edge journal, but it's also not a crackpot journal. >> A non-respectable journal doesn't mean its contents are crack-pottery, where did you even get that? > What? I never said that. You're contradicting yourself. If you put every English sentence (which is screaming crazy ---mind you, and single one of those bullshit will cost an actual physicist his credibility) from his homepage http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/ http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/ together with his disastrous publication record, you get a very simple conclusion. Pick anything. Say, his homemade "paper" which is the topic of this thread: > Ball Lightning (BL) is a natural phenomenon that is very complex and mysterious. We solved this enigma by starting with an analysis of observed facts, in order to find clues for its understanding. Then we applied the hypothetico-deductive method, by construting a theory that uses also known physical laws. Finally, we apply this theory to show that it is verifiable and accounts for very diverse observed facts. BL is a remarkable system, since it organizes and feeds itself somewhat like a living being. What-the-fuck? Enigma? Hypothetico-deductive method? Organizes and feeds itself somewhat like a living being?!? No real physicist would dare to use such crazy crackpottery language for god's sake! We're talking about a guy who says apparitions of sun are related to altered states of conscience! Still doesn't raise any red flags? Try to find one paper with such charlatanish language in APS or Nature group journals! > It is possible to talk about UFOs and miracles in a scientific context in a reasonable way Apparently, you're not an academician. Let me tell you this as a physicist: No, you can't. And that's a big NO. Unless you're ready to commit career-suicide, you can't talk about such bullshit in a peer-reviewed paper, physics conference, proceedings, books, even in a press release or social media. Mind you, he's not trying to explain how "UFOlogy" (seriously, what do I know, it's a science now!) is crazy to layman. It's the opposite! > I have no real opinion about the guy or his work. Yeah? And yet for whatever reason, you're overly attached to defending him, desperately try to clear his name. You know what, I'm done with you. Crackpots exist because they apparently attract certain kinds of people, and I don't wanna waste any more of time time with either group. Enjoy your crackpottery!

by privong 10y ago

tagrun 10y ago

> I wasn't able to find a journal, Why am I not surprised? > He does seem to have a few peer-reviewed publications... ...in no-name journals. > But, if it wasn't published in a journal, it's tough to insist that someone else in the community should know about it. In fact, if it wasn't published in a respectable journal, it's tough to take it seriously. Especially when it's coming from a guy who's talking about UFOs and miracles in "scientific" context. No, thanks. I'm not going to waste any of my time convincing people he is a crackpot in myriad ways. Edit: Since I can't reply to the reply below, I write it here: yes, that is the definition of a no-name journal. A physics journal with impact factor 1 is not a respectable journal. A non-respectable journal doesn't mean its contents are crack-pottery, where did you even get that? Crackpots with PhD have a few valid works, usually from old times, given that they got a PhD under some (presumably) normal scientist and maybe did a few postdocs here and there.

privong 10y ago
> ...in no-name journals. Foundations of Physics isn't a high-prestige, cutting-edge journal, but it's also not a crackpot journal. It seems to be a respectable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Physics Edit: > A non-respectable journal doesn't mean its contents are crack-pottery, where did you even get that? What? I never said that. I'm not saying the guy is not a crackpot. I'm just not willing to say he is, based only on paper titles and 2-sentence abstracts that can be interpreted multiple ways. > Especially when it's coming from a guy who's talking about UFOs and miracles in "scientific" context. I think you're drawing too sweeping conclusions from just titles and 2-sentence abstracts. It is possible to talk about UFOs and miracles in a scientific context in a reasonable way; e.g., by discussing whether reported phenomena are optical illusions or internal mental constructions. That's seeing to understand things other people report as reasonable processes. Of course, I agree that people can also purport to discuss these things scientifically while spewing bullshit. However, I can't tell from just the titles and abstracts which of those two things he is doing. I'd have to read the text of the papers to determine that. Absent less ambiguous information (and the time/willingness to read what he's written), I'm just not willing to condemn someone I know little to nothing about as a crackpot. If you've read the papers and have still come to the the conclusion that he's a crackpot, I'd certainly buy it. But, with the limited information I have, I have no real opinion about the guy or his work.
- tagrun 10y ago
  >> ...in no-name journals. > Foundations of Physics isn't a high-prestige, cutting-edge journal, but it's also not a crackpot journal. >> A non-respectable journal doesn't mean its contents are crack-pottery, where did you even get that? > What? I never said that. You're contradicting yourself. If you put every English sentence (which is screaming crazy ---mind you, and single one of those bullshit will cost an actual physicist his credibility) from his homepage http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/ http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/ together with his disastrous publication record, you get a very simple conclusion. Pick anything. Say, his homemade "paper" which is the topic of this thread: > Ball Lightning (BL) is a natural phenomenon that is very complex and mysterious. We solved this enigma by starting with an analysis of observed facts, in order to find clues for its understanding. Then we applied the hypothetico-deductive method, by construting a theory that uses also known physical laws. Finally, we apply this theory to show that it is verifiable and accounts for very diverse observed facts. BL is a remarkable system, since it organizes and feeds itself somewhat like a living being. What-the-fuck? Enigma? Hypothetico-deductive method? Organizes and feeds itself somewhat like a living being?!? No real physicist would dare to use such crazy crackpottery language for god's sake! We're talking about a guy who says apparitions of sun are related to altered states of conscience! Still doesn't raise any red flags? Try to find one paper with such charlatanish language in APS or Nature group journals! > It is possible to talk about UFOs and miracles in a scientific context in a reasonable way Apparently, you're not an academician. Let me tell you this as a physicist: No, you can't. And that's a big NO. Unless you're ready to commit career-suicide, you can't talk about such bullshit in a peer-reviewed paper, physics conference, proceedings, books, even in a press release or social media. Mind you, he's not trying to explain how "UFOlogy" (seriously, what do I know, it's a science now!) is crazy to layman. It's the opposite! > I have no real opinion about the guy or his work. Yeah? And yet for whatever reason, you're overly attached to defending him, desperately try to clear his name. You know what, I'm done with you. Crackpots exist because they apparently attract certain kinds of people, and I don't wanna waste any more of time time with either group. Enjoy your crackpottery!