3 ms·

> 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 w

• 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!
    • chmike 10y ago
      > 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! Let me turn back to you your expression : What-the-fuck ? You judge the scientific validity and pertinence on the words he used ? You said you are are Physicist ? What kind of scientist are you ? When he started working on this subject the common wisdom among scientist was that Ball Lightning was nothing more than a popular belief. It is thus an enigma. Do you know what a Hypothetico-deductive method is ? I start to doubt. Let me try to explain. The problem with Ball lightning (as with UFOs) is that our main source of information are testimonies. You could then discard the data, as do wrongfully skeptics, by saying there is doubt on the data so we can't do anything with it. Some go as far as using this uncertainty to justify the REJECTION of possible validity of the phenomenon while it is only UNKNOWN. This is a logical fallacy. If all scientists behaved like that in the past we would still be building our tools today by cutting flint. The Hypothetico-deductive method boils down to say "Ok I don't know if its real or not, but let's assume its real. What can we deduce from the data." The resulting deductions can lead us to elaborate a theory explaining the phenomenon that can then be tested. If the test fails, the theory is proven incorrect, but the reality of the phenomenon is still unknown. If the test succeed, the theory is proven valid and becomes a strong candidate for the explanation. This method is common science and led to the most remarkable breakthrough in our understanding of the universe we live in. Where is the crack-pottery in referring to that method ? > 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. So you explain by yourself why he didn't manage to publish on this subject in high ranked scientific journal. But have you considered why it can't be done? No one publishes on these subjects in scientific journals because no one publishes on these subjects on scientific journals. No Editor wants to risk the credibility of his journal regardless of the scientific quality of the work. You claim it's bullshit but on what base ? What are your arguments ? It's bullshit because no peer review article publishes an article on this subject ? Because of the words he use ? Your arguments are bullshit. Nothing else. Oh! Maybe you mean it must be crack-pottery because a scientist would ruin his career by publishing such work even on social media. Prof. Meessen is a true scientist not someone who tries to make a career in science. He work on research topic he believes he can provide a significant added value to it because this is the most valuable for humanity. People like you who are trying to discredit his work on the base you use are a shame for science (supposing you are really a physicist). If all scientists behaved like you the theory of relativity would never have been published and we would still be teaching classic mechanics. The poorness of your argumentation say it all. I don't believe a single second that you are a scientist. Having a diploma in science doesn't make you a true scientist.
• chmike 10y ago
  > In fact, if it wasn't published in a respectable journal, it's tough to take it seriously. This is a logical fallacy. We agree that peer review journals apply a peer review filter on published articles that guaranties (in general) the scientific quality of the published articles. You deduce from that that articles not published by peer review journals are crack-pottery. This is of course untrue. The scientific quality of articles that didn't went true the peer review filter is a priori UNKNOWN. > Especially when it's coming from a guy who's talking about UFOs and miracles in "scientific" context. So you judge the scientific quality of an article by its subject and not it's content ? You didn't even considered what he wrote about these subjects ? Let me explain you. His article on the miracle of the sun report a study of the Fatima event where many witnesses reported seen strange effect of the sun (change in color intensity and rotation) as well as ambient color changes like everything turning violet or else. A big crowd reported these observations and this was carefully collected. Prof.Meessen's interest to this case came from his study of UFOs. He was not the first who considered and explored the possibility that the Fatima event was due to a UFO. As a physicist he considered the possibility that ambient color changes could result from refraction effects like we see with a prism. The initial hypothesis was that this refraction could have been induced by EM field surrounding UFOs in a particular way. To make a long story short, his conclusion is that this idea is wrong and what people experienced was visual effects resulting from starring too long at the sun. He found an old articles documenting this effect and he also tested it himself at the risk to turn blind. He then investigated the other aspect of the Fatima event reporting the viewing of the Holly Mother. I mean he investigated as a true scientist. He discovered to his surprise that such events are very frequent. Most are not well known. Some even occurred close to where he live, so he could talk to the Priest who had access to the info. He concluded that these are very likely rooted in psychologically induced effects. Sorry but the only crack-pottery I see around here is your reasoning.