Galilean Electrodynamics
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/adring/
So let’s say you’ve got a theory. You have decided you cannot keep quiet any longer — you have to expose why 
Einstein was wrong. (In particular, you think he ties his shoes bass-ackwards.) But no one in the establishment will listen to you, despite your advanced degree in personal finance and that you own a calculator. So how are you going to get your ninety-four page article accepted in the mainstream? For one thing, it’d be nice if you could get it published in a well-respected physics journal, like Physics Review Letters, or Nature, or Science. But for some reason, they won’t accept your paper. What do you do? Eureka! Found your own scientific journal!
Print out and leave lying around the office, for maximum impressiveness
Just like our friends over at Autodynamics, who founded a society to advance their own theory, the folks at Galilean Electrodynamics founded a journal to publish articles for their friends, and presumably for anyone else who can’t get their theories published in mainstream journals. Cobble together some papers, publish them in your latest journal, and presto biz markie, you can now claim that you’ve been “published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. Well, my publications have been peer-reviewed as well, once I called everyone out of the house to see what I had written in the snow.1 I’ll be damned, though, they put some work into it — you can download a few sample articles from the journal, and they look cosmetically as though they came from a standard science journal.
Our scores are:
1. Terrible English: Since this is an entire journal (apparently), not just a single poorly-groomed maverick physicist, they clearly put some work into editing. In fact there is an editorial board of three people, which is at least five more editors than they have at TimeCube. The sample papers are all disappointingly grammatical. (Quick, someone register www.disappointinglygrammatical.com for me…) One out of ten.
2. All Science Is WRONG: What a varied panoply of topics which are declared wrong by this journal. (Did I use the word “panoply” right? The answer will be posted at www.disappointinglygrammatical.com.) We can’t download all the papers, just a few sample papers, but they are all targeted toward Einstein’s relativity. As I’ve said before, why can’t these guys be original and go after someone other than Einstein? Why can’t Ernst Mach get some love? Seven out of ten.
3. Irritated, emotional language: In the effort to appear to be a respectable mainstream journal, they’ve adopted the super-dry, matter-of-fact voice that is ubiquitous in science. (Did I use “ubiquitous” right?) Just a couple very faint swipes at Einstein in the journal’s charter. One out of ten.
4. One extremely long and ugly webpage: While the page itself looks a little dated, overall it’s tidy and well-organized, which absolutely astounds me. What kind of medication is needed to maintain cognitive organization for these guys, to get their website in order? Zero out of ten.
5. Completely new definitions: A glance through the sample papers doesn’t turn up any glaring deviations from accepted physics terminology usage. (Did I use the word “glance” correctly?) I bet there are some real gems buried in the journal archives, if we could only get them. Anyone feel like taking a trip to the library to scan some old articles for me? Three out of ten.
The results: Twelve out of 50, a low score that you’d expect from a pseudoscience journal that has been around for a while. I’m guessing they aren’t going to send me a free subscription…
Follow Timeblimp on Twitter 