4 ms·

Fischbach's page, with citations of (but not links to) the original research: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/ephraim.shtml http://www.physics.pur

Fischbach's page, with citations of (but not links to) the original research: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/ephraim.shtml http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/ephraim.shtml A preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283 Why do publications refuse to post links to (or at least citations of) the original scientific articles? I mean, these links are the result of five minutes of googling; which means the reporter communicated with the authors themselves but didn't bother to ask for a hyperlink or an emailed citation. The mind boggles.

jcdreads 16y ago
And here's a paper claiming evidence against: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/EarthSun.pdf http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/EarthSun.pdf (Another 30 seconds of googling.)
- ynniv 16y ago
  Except that the current article suggests a cycle of 33 days which is not due to the Earth - Sun distance but hypothetically correlated to the face of the core of the Sun (which the article suggests has a period of 33 days compared to the 28 days of the surface of the sun). I don't mind that journalists don't publish your "30 seconds of Googling". Doing so would suggest that top Google hits are fact.
mattheww 16y ago
Actually the paper discussed in OP is a preprint at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4848 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4848 It uses an extremely suspicious technique to test the significance of their finding. I doubt this paper will pass review without substantial changes. edit: The one you posted is 2 years old, but tries to explain the same effect with a different cause.
- machrider 16y ago
  Can you elaborate on the suspiciousness for a lay audience?
  - mattheww 16y ago
    I'm referring here to the significance estimates of section 3. It's immediately suspicious that the authors introduce a new type of "test" for whatever spectra are being measured. When that happens, the authors need to rigorously demonstrate its validity. That is not present in this preprint. The thing that needs to be demonstrated is that their method generates a reasonable space of outcomes. It's not clear to me that's true for their method.
- mturmon 16y ago
  For instance, eq. (7) used to calculate significance values is the invention of the first author and is not widely accepted. Also, eq. (1) assumes joint independence of all M = 22 frequency bands, which has not been justified.
kragen 16y ago
> Why do publications refuse to post links to (or at least citations of) the original scientific articles? Here are my three best guesses: 1. The reporters think their readers are idiots who aren't capable of understanding anything beyond what the reporters spoonfeed them. 2. The reporters want to reduce the chances that they will be caught in whatever mistakes they make. 3. Adequate citations in the pre-WWW world looked intimidating to the uninitiated.

jcdreads 16y ago

And here's a paper claiming evidence against: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/EarthSun.pdf http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/files/EarthSun.pdf (Another 30 seconds of googling.)

ynniv 16y ago
Except that the current article suggests a cycle of 33 days which is not due to the Earth - Sun distance but hypothetically correlated to the face of the core of the Sun (which the article suggests has a period of 33 days compared to the 28 days of the surface of the sun). I don't mind that journalists don't publish your "30 seconds of Googling". Doing so would suggest that top Google hits are fact.

mattheww 16y ago

Actually the paper discussed in OP is a preprint at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4848 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4848 It uses an extremely suspicious technique to test the significance of their finding. I doubt this paper will pass review without substantial changes. edit: The one you posted is 2 years old, but tries to explain the same effect with a different cause.

machrider 16y ago
Can you elaborate on the suspiciousness for a lay audience?
- mattheww 16y ago
  I'm referring here to the significance estimates of section 3. It's immediately suspicious that the authors introduce a new type of "test" for whatever spectra are being measured. When that happens, the authors need to rigorously demonstrate its validity. That is not present in this preprint. The thing that needs to be demonstrated is that their method generates a reasonable space of outcomes. It's not clear to me that's true for their method.
mturmon 16y ago
For instance, eq. (7) used to calculate significance values is the invention of the first author and is not widely accepted. Also, eq. (1) assumes joint independence of all M = 22 frequency bands, which has not been justified.

kragen 16y ago

> Why do publications refuse to post links to (or at least citations of) the original scientific articles? Here are my three best guesses: 1. The reporters think their readers are idiots who aren't capable of understanding anything beyond what the reporters spoonfeed them. 2. The reporters want to reduce the chances that they will be caught in whatever mistakes they make. 3. Adequate citations in the pre-WWW world looked intimidating to the uninitiated.