Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Another g theory; is this wet or only damp?



I don't understand the overly cryptic remark. The reference is to a journal that referees all its publications. Publication in a Phys Rev journal indicates that the publication was refereed. It sounds as though the author of the comment was not familiar with this fact.
Regards,
Jack


On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Alfredo Louro wrote:

Don't confuse references with referees.

On Feb 4, 2008 10:58 AM, Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov> wrote:
Does anyone know who has "generally agreed" that this work is "all wet"?
Apparently, at least one referee has not so agreed, unless the author of
"this work" is misrepresenting his sources. See
Phys.Rev.A49:678-694,1994 (Rueda and Haisch)
Regards,
Jack




On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Bernard Cleyet wrote:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/BS-GR.pdf

bc doesn't want to continue reading something generally agreed upon
as being all wet.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley




_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley