Berenstein and Motl have posted about the new HEP search engine INSPIRE which replaces the old and trusted SPIRES. INSPIRE can do everything SPIRES could, but better! or at least faster. But can it do anything new? yes it can. Try entering the search term “vixra” and you will get a list of all the HEP papers on viXra. These were also indexed by SPIRES, but as far as I know there was no way of searching for them all in one list.

20 Responses to INSPIRE

  1. Kea says:

    Cool! It looks good.

  2. Luboš Motl says:

    Congrats to having viXra there, you deserve it – not sure about the individual papers that get listed, however. 🙂

  3. Luboš Motl says:

    By the way, I wanted to write an idea here. Have you considered adding “Climate Science” to the fields of

    You could attract a potentially huge number of papers “from all sides” – so that you could apply with the standard practice to actually filter papers that seem to be just self-evident rubbish – or failing to obey some basic guidelines.

    If you did it well and made some advertisement on the relevant blogs, you could add orders of magnitude to the traffic.

    • Philip Gibbs says:

      Thank you for the kind words. I did originally add a climate science category but I had no submissions, so I removed it. Later I had one submission in that category so I added a “Geophysics” category that can include climate science. I’d certainly like to have more. If I ever find time to introduce some climate discussions on this blog it might bring some in.

      As for filtering, the principle of is to not filter the submissions, but the reader can filter in any way they please. For most people this means just reading something if it comes up in a relevant search somewhere like INSPIRE or Google Scholar or as a citation. This method reduces to zero the risk that someone with a good idea will be filtered out before anyone can see it. If there are lots of papers that you or anyone else thinks are “self-evident rubbish” that is fine, you are entitled to your judgement and you don’t have to read them.

      Yes I know that some people say they want to have the the archives filtered by people with miraculously good judgement so that stuff they consider as rubbish does not come up in their searches and waste their time. The trouble is that one person’s rubbish is another persons gold mine. There are only a few papers that almost everyone would agree on as “rubbish” and even then it is possible that they hold the hidden germ of an idea that someone else may get inspiration from.

  4. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    On second thought, maybe putting climate science here is a bad idea. A section on geophysics might be considered of course, but I would recommend not opening up a whole section on climate science.

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Dear Lawrence, thanks for your opinion. Would you also kindly offer an argument? 😉

      I think that the point of viXra was to accumulate papers that have been “censored” and I kind of think that the climate science is the only discipline today in which you can actually get some relevant quality work of this sort.

      • Lawrence B. Crowell says:

        I think opening up a section devoted to “climate science” is to take a rather small area of intellectual endeavor and to magnify it too much. A subject of geophysics might be worth opening up, which has as a subcategory atmospheric physics (implied or otherwise), where climatology might be discussed. Creating a section labeled climate science would be a big red cape for all sorts of nonsense of a political nature. As things stand there might be a range of nonsense here as it is, but at least it is largely devoid of political content. Politics is poison best avoided.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        Dear Lawrence, no doubt, I completely agree that the climate science is a very small portion of science – even a small portion of Earth sciences.

        But it’s a field where an out-of-system platform may actually have some comparative advantage. It seems obvious to me that if this aspect of “efficiency and meritocracy” of the peer review in various disciplines won’t be taken into account by the viXra master, his or her server is guaranteed to remain a sink to collect garbage written by cranks which it has been by now, and correct me if this description is inaccurate. 😉

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I’ve recreated the Climate Research category 🙂

      • Lawrence B. Crowell says:

        Well it is a mute point now. My only issue is whether this would bring in a lot of political nonsense. From what I can see the debate is largely now a political one, and politics is largely about the art of lying.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        I agree that there is too much politics involved, but there is still a scientific issue and people trying to resolve it. The political element may be affecting the peer review so it would be a good thing to have an open archive for climate research.

        The question is whether climate scientists would be willing to use an open archive. I suspect that if they were it would at least have to be an archive hosted by research institutions. I am not sure viXra will have sufficient credibility.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        Thanks, Phil, but you would need some advertisement – not only in the field you recreated – to actually attract a broader spectrum of writers. Needless to say, it should be as inclusive as possible.

      • Philip Gibbs says:

        Yes, I will start by posting something here to get some dicussions about climate change going. Perhaps I will write up what I learn (if anything) and post it to the viXra category. It wont happen this week because I am too busy. My initial position is that I am not convinced by either side of the argument but I want to look at the scientific evidence and try to understand it.

        I dont want to spam other peoples blogs and I dont want to push it too hard until there is a bit of initial content.

      • Ulla says:

        That is not you worries, Lubos. Soon viXra archive will be very popular, I think, when all anomalies that LHC produce demands an explanation 🙂

  5. Janne says:

    Here is a good simple example how even the scientific community is not immune to mass psychosis. Which is why the community should take open scientific publishing seriously.

    • Luboš Motl says:

      Fun. For others, to summarize, the question was whether they could build a wind-turbine-driven car that can go downwind, and faster than wind.

      Many people would tell him No.

      Of course, there are lots of good points and lots of natural Aristotelian errors. What’s important is that the wind turbine can collect the energy from rotation – caused by the wind – without being pushed too much by the wind.

      Once you can do so, this energy may simply be converted to motion of the car. However, it’s still important to know what’s the air speed relatively to the moving car. If you move downwind and faster than wind, it’s of course equivalent to moving upwind. A problematic point may be when you move exactly by the wind speed, and downwind, because at that moment, you can’t get any energy from the air. To jump across this “barrier”, you need to store the energy for a while, or rely on fluctuating wind speed, I think.

      But once you move faster than wind or upwind, you can get energy from wind turbines by moving upwind, too. That’s one of the basic paradoxical conclusions that people sailing on the sea are more experienced about than the “theorists”.

      I don’t know whether there’s any limit but I do realize that the reasoning saying that you “can’t” do such things is flawed and actually based on pre-Newtonian intuition about friction etc.

      • Janne says:

        How to account for this experiment then? Note that the cart is climbing to a slight uphill.

      • Luboš Motl says:

        Dear Janne, apologies, you may have misunderstood my conclusion about this experiment – which was there in my comment.

        My conclusion was that it *was* possible to go downwind faster than wind, much like it is possible to collect some wind energy and use it to move upwind. These two cases are at least morally equivalent.

        The wrong intuition of many people – including myself, before I wrote anything about it – is that the wind inevitably makes all objects “rapidly” moving with the same speed as the wind. But that’s not the case.

        Objects can still have a low resistance with respect to the relatively moving air – but they can still obtain more energy than they lose by using the wind to rotate the turbines. Once you get this energy from the rotation, it can be used to move the car uphill, or many other things.

  6. Lawrence B. Crowell says:

    The critical velocity is not the velocity of the car, but the velocity of the air over the curved surface of the turbine. The wind provides the energy to maintain that air flow. If the wind stopped that energy source is removed the the velocity across the blades would drop.

%d bloggers like this: