Stack Exchange
log in

Walter

 Discussion on question by Walter: Sho…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@EarlGrey It's the primary interest of the authors to publish their research, but it is not a primary interest of the reviewer to review or the editors to edit. If you do something that is not in your interest, you should get compensated. Most don't, which also implies that they won't do that job as well as they would if they got paid.
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@Allure Publication costs are no way near 2500 per paper. And to 'prove' the point, there are completely free completely open-access journals, astro.theoj.org for example.
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@Buffy Another point worth making here is that the Journal as a quite obvious conflict of interest when charging authors. The conflict between profit (accepting bad papers) and that of keeping the science clean (rejecting bad papers). Hence, APC are mostly detrimental for science.
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@Buffy I never proposed lucrative payments or employment, but merely a voucher system w/o personal/private benefit, that can only be used to publish with the same publisher or journal. In fact, this system avoids all complications of employment and money transfers.
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@Buffy. I disagree with you regarding whom the service is given. It is always a service primarily to the journal, since its right to exist is based on the peer review, and only secondary to the author, who might decide to ignore your review and publish elsewhere (if the journal ignores your review, they cannot expect you to review for them again). Moreover, where is the conflict of interest in this?
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@Buffy I didn't suggest payment for reviewers. Moreover, what kind of conflict of interest should arise? Please explain.
Walter
Mar 20, 2024 21:23
@WhatTheDuck Yes, that are things that are also important, but definitely much less than the review. Moreover, editors often get not compensated either. The text editing is often done professionally, but terribly badly (in my experience). If reviewing was not the most important thing, then authors would just ignore journals and publish on the arXiv only (at least in my field).
 

 Discussion on answer by Dmitry Savost…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Mar 18, 2024 19:28
This is not an answer to the question at all (it's important, but doesn't answer the question). Whether coming late is a lack of respect depends presumably somewhat on the cultural background, but if students keep coming late despite being informed that this is inappropriate, I consider this a serious sign of disrespect and breach of trust.
 

 Discussion on question by Whose: Does…

Imported from a comment discussion on physics.stackexchange.co...
Walter
Jul 16, 2019 03:46
@Firzen your comment seems the only sanity in all this here (no good answer, hardly a good comment). How come?
 

 Discussion on question by sldkjflskdj…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Nov 26, 2017 23:55
For the benefit of other departments around the world, please reveal the make and model of calculator.
 

 Discussion on answer by user82630: Pr…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Nov 13, 2017 07:29
Too tedious, too much work.
 

 Discussion on question by Gabriel: Ca…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Sep 23, 2017 16:57
without access to the source code there is no way to check/reproduce them [the results] This is wrong. In order to reproduce the results, not the code, but the numerical method should described in sufficient detail (for others to reproduce with their own code). Results obtain by only one code should never be trusted (the code could be faulty, which is not unheard of).
 

 Discussion on question by Li.Elce: Us…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Aug 2, 2017 02:31
What does ze/hir mean? What language is that?
 

 Discussion on question by Hakaishin: …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Jun 16, 2017 14:43
@Hakaishin You seem to have a wrong notion of what a supercomputer is or constitutes. It is usually a large number of small computers (or nodes) connected with a fast interconnect for communication. The crucial bit is, however, that it runs not just one program at a time, but many. Each program uses some number nodes (between 1 and many). Each decent University has their own little supercomputer and each academic has access, so can run their busy beaver if they want to.
 

 Discussion on question by Ann Greene:…

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
Walter
Jun 7, 2017 22:15
You cannot expect your professor to read emails at all times, so obviously, that email send by your classmate was bound to be ineffective.
 

 2016 Physics Stack Exchange Election

Open Discussion for physics.stackexchange.com/election/3
Walter
Oct 6, 2016 17:26
Has anybody here discussed the ratio of down- to up-votes cast by the candidates? Notably three of the candidates have cast more than 1 downvote for every 2 upvotes. I think this is a sign of poor support for both good and bad post. IMHO, a downvote is not constructive and does not necessarily encourage better posts and should be used with great care.
 

 Discussion on answer by Walter: Deter…

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
Walter
Oct 4, 2014 13:35
@steveOw sorry steve. Please reset the link. I was busy with other things and forgot to get in touch.
Walter
Sep 13, 2014 14:08
of course, but I'm not going to give my email publicly here.
Walter
Sep 9, 2014 13:27
Btw, I wouldn't mind if you finally accept my answer ...
Walter
Sep 9, 2014 13:24
The direction of periapse roation is in the sense of rotation (for K>0), since omega points in the direction of h.
Walter
Sep 9, 2014 13:20
By simpler way to get there, I meant a simpler way to do the perturbation analysis. I would like to refer to your analysis at some time in future. In which context? In a publication?
Walter
Sep 9, 2014 08:18
But you're correct regarding the values of the integrals. So, finally, we arrive at a formula that agrees with Einsteins (for K=3). I wonder whether there wasn't a simpler way to get there ...
Walter
Sep 9, 2014 08:04
On the physical dimension factors (using the notation whereby [.] denotes physical dimension): [h^2 v_r R / r^4] = [vc^2 a^2 vc a / a^4] = [vc^3 / a] = [Omega vc^2] since Omega=vc/a; and [v_r^2 V_t / r] = [vc^2 vc / a] = [vc^3 / a] = [Omega vc^2].
Walter
Sep 9, 2014 07:46
Yes, there is indeed a factor (1-e^2) missing. I had it originally, but later "corrected" it away. I'll amend the answer soon. The factor [a] must be an error on your part, already because otherwise the physical dimension would be wrong.
Walter
Sep 6, 2014 08:51
Ah, I now understand. I'll add an explanation (that the component in dirction of e_hat vanishes) to the appendix.
Walter
Sep 6, 2014 08:48
fixed the v_c in v_t; added "(for K=3)". why is k_hat component included but e_hat component excluded from final reckoning? What do you mean? To which part of the answer are you refering? The change of the eccentricity vector is in the direction of vector k (the component in direction of e averages to zero), which is exactly the same as a rotation around the vertical (direction h) axis. In the summary, I only refer to the amount of rotation.
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:16
Btw, the formula you're quoting originates from Albert Einstein (1915), but didn't use your acceleration formula.
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:16
That's indeed intriguing. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with the definition of $v_t$. What can't you understand? Are you sure your initial formula was correct (in particular the interpretation of transverse)?
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:16
How did you obtain the GR-derived rate?
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:16
I have corrected the algebra. But I think the formula still disagrees, with the disagreement reduced by a factor 2. I get 44.878879264914915898 arcsec/century.
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:16
Hmm, no 9% seems too large an error here, as $v_c\ll c$. So perhaps something is wrong with my algebra or you plugged in slightly wrong numbers (the result depends sensitively on $e$).
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:16
You mean the direction of periapse. Yes, that can be looked at using perturbation theory too.
 

 Discussion between steveOw and Walter

Imported from a comment discussion on astronomy.stackexchange....
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:07
Btw, the formula you're quoting originates from Albert Einstein (1915), but didn't use your acceleration formula.
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:07
That's indeed intriguing. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with the definition of $v_t$. What can't you understand? Are you sure your initial formula was correct (in particular the interpretation of transverse)?
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:07
How did you obtain the GR-derived rate?
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:07
I have corrected the algebra. But I think the formula still disagrees, with the disagreement reduced by a factor 2. I get 44.878879264914915898 arcsec/century.
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:07
Hmm, no 9% seems too large an error here, as $v_c\ll c$. So perhaps something is wrong with my algebra or you plugged in slightly wrong numbers (the result depends sensitively on $e$).
Walter
Sep 4, 2014 21:07
You mean the direction of periapse. Yes, that can be looked at using perturbation theory too.