[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 18 KB, 385x383, babby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2658698 No.2658698 [Reply] [Original]

http://daviddobbs.posterous.com/journal-of-cosmology-going-out-with-big-bang

Journal of Cosmology is going out of business. Here's a site rip for you /sci/ducks.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UGAP5VHD

>> No.2658710

>Because JOC's editorial policy was to publish all peer reviewed science-based theory, including articles which directly challenged the "sacred cows" of "conventional wisdom", its success posed a direct threat to the entire scientific establishment and the "gate-keepers" who wish to protect easily disproved myths and crush dissenting views.

BAAWWWWW, THE EVIL SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT DOESN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO MY CRAPPY, MADE-UP THEORIES!

Pathetic.

>> No.2658716

>>2658710
Skepticism bordering on religious zeal is not science.

>> No.2658724

>>2658716
Theories presented without a shred of experimental proof are not science, either.

>> No.2658728
File: 127 KB, 425x450, fun_allowed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2658728

>>2658724
Like string theory?

>> No.2658745

>>2658710 MADE-UP THEORIES

I don't believe you know what "theory" means, Mr. High School Musical Drop-Out.

>> No.2658762
File: 39 KB, 363x363, 1298381786450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2658762

>mfw

>> No.2658764

Yes, exactly like it.

>> No.2658765

>>2658728
Troll.

Anyways, they have no business running a scientific journal, much less one published on the internet.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/107672-Journal-of-Cosmology?s=c57c078145ab3166600aada78f7cc2
77

>Basically all authors who include complex mathematics can do so in Microsoft Word because thay all prepare Power Point presentations, which uses the same software, and there are packages that do the LATEX conversion if desired.
>And wa do take .pdf derived from LATEX if necessary, but then we must work with the author to put in the JofC headers because it is beastly difficult to bring a LATEX-derived pdf into html.
>Rudy Schild, the Editor in Chief

wat.


Not to mention their editor's utter lack of knowledge of forum convention, and attribution of quotations to the poster, rather than THE CITED AUTHOR.

>> No.2658773

>However, Mr. Leif Ericson Cruiser, if you "say there is an invisible elf" in your backyard, then what you believe is not based on science, and you are not to be taken seriously.

>> No.2658788

Does this mean the article about the bacteria in the meteor was bullshit?

>> No.2658804

>>2658765 derrrr string theory is complicated therefore it must be true and testable. also i love derrida and deconstructionism!!!

>> No.2658813
File: 51 KB, 1280x800, gnu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2658813

>>2658765 someone uses windows not open source technology QED they must be idiots

Also a scientific journal being freely available on the internet automatically makes it into something on par with David Icke?

>> No.2658831
File: 103 KB, 273x305, 1297149675773.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2658831

>>2658813
Seriously Patachu, what the fuck

>> No.2658832

>>2658804
>Assuming I agree with string theory

confirmed for massive troll

>>2658813
No, but actively rejecting latex, because "everyone uses windows in the end anyways" is fucking stupid. Especially for a technical field such as this. Hell, "latex into html is hard"? Look at the fucking scripts on this board.

It's not proof positive, but their geoshitties look, and opinions on technology suggest a lot of retardation.

>> No.2660477

Site rip? What in the buttfuck, >>2658698?