Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: bjones on 23 Dec 2008 17:15 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:59:29 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: -snip- >Good grief, not even another *imbecile* would dream of >stealing your nonsense. -snip- >Dirk Vdm Have you figured out whether the moving rod will (absolutely) synchronize the two clocks? No, because Dr. Dirk is the *imbecile* here. /bjones/
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 18:03 On Dec 23, 3:34 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:47:38 -0800 (PST), > > PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > -snip- > > > > >On Dec 23, 12:59 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > >> How can there be no risk when anyone who sees it could then > >> steal it? Even that staunch relativist John Baez (who has > >> steadfastly refused to talk to me) may steal it, and he > >> could probably get it published next week! > > >This is a false fear. Papers are not submitted or reviewed > >in secret. A great example is arXive.org, where papers are > >exposed to public view BEFORE being accepted for publication. > >Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a copyright > >notice, then your article is protected by law. Think about it. > >Reviewers at peer-reviewed journals are just that --- peers. > >As such, they could very well reject a paper and then turn > >around and write and submit an identical one. This does not > >happen. Now ask yourself why that's so. > > >I'm sorry, your excuses are not very compelling. > > >PD > > I would like for you to be right, and you may be, > but see my below discussion, which follows the > following two brief discussions: > > Returning momentarily to your statement that "Many > journals take particular stances on what sorts of > articles they are interested in," I have to wonder > what sort of theoretical or foundational physics > journal would not want to publish a simple proof > that clocks can be (absolutely) synchronized? Two comments - That is not for you to question. As I said, the editors own and exercise sole discretion as their prerogative what gets published in their journals. If they want it to be from authors all from east of the Mississippi, then that is completely within their rights. - You have not yet provided (at least for my eyes) a simple proof that two clocks can be absolutely synchronized. > > And also returning momentarily to your statements that > "There are a number of papers that call SR into question > that are published annually. So then you have to ask > yourself the question what the difference is." I have > already presented the following: Your personal experience notwithstanding, the fact remains that there are a number of papers that are published annually that call SR into question. This indisputable fact should call into question what the difference in your particular case might be, regardless of what information you received in feedback. It is apparent that it was not impossible to find referees to review those papers that have been published recently and which called SR into question. > > [from the editor of Foundations of Physics] > "There are a number of apparent conflicts in STR, but > they have all been resolved by careful analysis. Thus > it is difficult, if not impossible, to find referees > who are prepared to spend any time on finding the flaw > in the paradox of the day." > > This was regarding my brief *preliminary* article, the > one that was suppose to prove my credibility, but could > not because it was left unread. > > And now, back to the drawing board. Back in Einstein's > day, a complete unknown could easily be published in > the best journal, but today it takes some affiliations, > and an author's affliations protect him from theft when > he submits to either arXive.org or a journal. I don't know why you think an affiliation protects from theft. What on earth gave you that idea? And I don't know that it was true in Einstein's day that a complete unknown could get published. Einstein was fairly well connected and had a number of people pulling for him. > > And speaking of affliations, look at the following: > 'Now-unaffliated Ph.D. has hard time getting published' > "For the author, Gregor Bayer of Cedar Hill, Texas, the > publication was a breakthrough. 'It has been a very hard > struggle for me to get anything published,' he wrote in > an email, though he had another paper in print earlier this > year. 'Fortunately, some good people are beginning to take > me seriously.' > > Bayer attributed his troubles to the fact that he doesn't > work for any scientific institution, so other researchers > are reluctant to back his theories. 'I have a Ph.D. in > physics from the University of Chicago,' from 1972, he > wrote; "but I left the field many years ago. As a career, > physics is hell: as a hobby, it is heaven. Ideas come easily > to me now.'" I don't dismiss the fact that establishing scientific credibility is a hurdle that accompanies publication. I believe this is one of the reasons why Wolfram (and other authors) have chosen other avenues to publication so as not to deal with that hurdle. You seem reticent to take creative work-around measures where others have, and you are also quick to lie down and submit in resignation where, for example, Bayer was more persistent. I honestly don't think you've tried hard enough, which is why I say you are using barriers as an excuse. > > You wrote: > >Likewise, if you publish on your own website with a > >copyright notice, then your article is protected by law. > > But here is the actual law: > > 'What Is Not Protected By Copyright' > > Ideas, Methods, or Systems are not subject to > copyright protection. Copyright protection, > therefore, is not available for: ideas or > procedures for doing, making, or building > things; scientific or technical methods or > discoveries; business operations or procedures; > mathematical principles; formulas, algorithms; > or any other concept, process, or method of > operation. > > Section 102 of the copyright law, title 17, > United States Code, clearly expresses this > principle: > > "In no case does copyright protection for an > original work of authorship extend to any idea, > procedure, process, system, method of operation, > concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of > the form in which it is described, explained, > illustrated, or embodied in such work." > That is correct. Ideas do not get copyrighted, even in science. So the question for you is, how do you think attribution works in science through publication, if publication is not a guarantee of ownership of an idea? After all, ideas are not unique, and someone can publish later what was published earlier (in principle), without legal redress. So how do YOU think it works in science, that this is generally not a piracy-riddled business? PD
From: PD on 23 Dec 2008 18:10 On Dec 23, 3:51 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:55:07 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel" > > <dirkvandemoor...(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: > >PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > 6c931218-b929-493c-9180-a4cf4f7ad...(a)q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com > >> On Dec 23, 1:51 pm, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > >>> It doesn't take a superlative sleuth to see that > >>> Dear Dr. Dirk also has no rebuttal. > > >> Brian, you seem off the track here. When you post ideas here, > >> you feel you are owed a compelling rebuttal. When you submit > >> articles for publication and they are rejected, you feel you > >> are owed a compelling rebuttal. When you don't get one, you > >> issue a 3rd grade dare. > > >> I don't know why you think you are owed a rebuttal. > > You cannot be that dumb. > > If someone has an experiment that is supposed to disprove SR, > and posts that experiment here, then why shouldn't they fully > expect a rebuttal (or acceptance)? That's the whole point of > posting such a thing. I disagree. You are not OWED a rebuttal in the very act of posting, even if it is your intent to try to elicit it in so posting. If that were true, then every crank could submit every half-baked notion that crossed their minds and demand satisfaction in the form of a well-formed rebuttal. In so doing, any loony could keep any number of people busy for a long time with absolutely no gain to be had. Even if you are NOT a loony, you do not have the right to *expect* that you will be provided an insightful and compelling rebuttal under any circumstances. > > Either rebut the supposed proof, or accept it; dead silence > is of no use to anyone. Sorry, but people meter their time and effort. If someone judges *by their own metric* that something is worth a thoughtful reply, then they'll do it. If they don't, then they won't, whether you think that it is a waste and of no use to anyone or not. > > There are countless examples in the physics groups of > proposed proofs, and countless examples of rebuttals, > so I have no idea why you are asking why I think I > should have a rebuttal. > Just because you see examples of those being given, does NOT mean that your submission to the pool deserves the same response. If you do not get that kind of response, then it is time to examine your own work and ask why yours did not get a response when other amateurs did get one. > > > >Because in the past decade (and beyond) we have been actually > >giving him rebuttals galore. > >He got addicted to it. Now we got tired of rebutting. So he feels > >miserable. Neat, no? > > >Dirk Vdm > > No, not neat, not even correct. No one has ever issued > a valid counterargument re my experiments/examples. > > Add lying to Dirk's fumbles. > > > > > > >> If there is something about relativity that doesn't > >> make sense to you, has it ever occurred to you just to > >> ASK about it, rather than propose an alternative and > >> demand that someone prove you wrong? > > >>> Funny how he can label something "utter nonsense" > >>> even though he is utterly unable to refute it. > >>> (But that's assuming that he understood it!) > > >>> All he has to do is to tell us why the sliding rod > >>> will not absolutely synchronize the clocks. > > >>> /bjones/ > > Does the above request of mine look like a command? > > OK, I will *ask* you about it: > > Can you, PD, tell us why the sliding rod will not > (absolutely) synchronize the clocks? You have not given me access to your submitted paper where you claim to have fleshed this out in detail. Your one-paragraph extraction of a cover letter does not draw my attention. > > /bjones/
From: schoenfeld.one on 23 Dec 2008 20:03 On Dec 24, 4:35 am, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 9:59 am, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 11:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 7:38 pm, schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 2:39 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > schoenfeld....(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > facts if you are interested: > > > > > > Your so-called "facts" have never been demonstrated, much less > > > > > established as fact. > > > > > > > [1] gravitational effects are superluminal. > > > > > > What God told you this? > > > > > This was measured in dreamland. They measured gravitational wave > > > > interference near the reactor and for all intensive purposes was > > > > superluminal. The reactor works by transmuting the stable element 115 > > > > into highly unstable element 116 which immediately decays into > > > > antimatter. Due to the nature of element 155 falling within the island > > > > of stability, the cumulative strong nuclear forces extend far beyond > > > > the perimiter of the atom. This strong-nuclear-force wave is amplified > > > > (gravity horn) during the reaction and channeled via wave-guides. > > > > These emissions of the amplified strong nuclear forces interact with > > > > the gravitational field, and for all intensive purposes are > > > > gravitational fields themselves. Deformations of space and time also > > > > arise in regions of gravitational interference. > > > > > [...] > > > > Oh my. Officially in the Deep End.- Hide quoted text - > > > "Dreamland" is the nickname for the S4 installation at Groom Lake, > > Nevada. > > Otherwise know as "Area 51" for the aficionados No, it's known as "S4". Remember, you are not entitled to an education, and if I so decide, you will not have any further errors corrected or knowledge presented. The petty are learned to listen to the wise. [...]
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 24 Dec 2008 01:54
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:14:39 +0100, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel(a)nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote: >Dr. Henri Wilson <hw@..> wrote in message > pcl2l4taujmc66381evuq6n4s4avb4pbkg(a)4ax.com >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:08:43 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics> >> wrote: >> >>>> /bjones/ >> >> I have some sympathy for you ideas but differ on several major points. > >Don't trust him, Brian, this demented imbecile is definitely going to >steal your nonsense. When a demented imbecile calls one a 'demented imbecile' I don't think one has cause for concern. > >Dirk Vdm Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm. ...... |