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 24 Dec 2008 08:26 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:03:34 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: -snip- >I don't know why you think an affiliation protects from theft. >What on earth gave you that idea? The more people involved, the better the protection. >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. -snip- But not from an unknown with no affliations. I cannot even "get published" in the newsgroup, or, if I do get a foot in the door, then it is slammed shut. Here is an example: Check out this thread: Newsgroups: sci.physics.research Subject: Need Help With c-Invariance Notice that there is only one reply ("Blake Winter"). I sent in a reply to Mr. Winter days ago, but it never showed up. It was stonewalled by the mod. because it blew away both Winter and SR. (My initial post got in only because I carefully worded it as a non-attack.) If I am instantly rejected (as soon as my real work is seen) in a mere newsgroup, then how easy will it be for me to get published in a legit journal? -snip- >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. Well, I should not have to work around when it comes to a valid scientific discovery. Also, Wolfram was rich, and I am not. And Bayer may not have been more persistent - I have been trying for a good long while. (You have seen only part of the story.) -snip- >That is correct. Ideas do not get copyrighted, >even in science. But you claimed otherwise just a while ago. This eliminates the web solution for me. >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? There have been disputes over authorship, and they get worse the more important the material is. I would say that a permanent record in a legit physics journal is pretty good protection. Anything else is less good. /bjones/
From: bjones on 24 Dec 2008 08:46 On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:10:41 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Just because you see examples of those being given, >oes 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. That's easy - it's because mine is harder to refute. (See my other post to you re the stonewalling of my post in the moderated group.) >bjones <nipit(a)4sure.com> wrote in message >> 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. I did not claim such a thing, and that was not a cover letter, it was, as I said, a proof of my credibility. Also, the paragraph was the entire story, as should have been obvious. Here it is again: > ---------------------------------------------------------- > As shown in the diagram, a rod is at rest relative to the > x axis of an inertial coordinate system, with the rod's > end points R1 and R2 coinciding respectively with x axis > points X1 and X2. > > R1=======rod======R2 > X1-----x axis-----X2------------- > > Let this rod be moved a little to the right, and then slid > at a steady speed leftward (parallel and adjacent to the x axis) > until points R1 and X1 once again coincide (in passing). An > observer who is at rest wrt the x axis, and who is at this > left-hand R1-X1 event then knows two important facts about the > rod's other end point R2, viz., he knows that (1) this point > exists, and he also knows that (2) this point must be either > coincident with X2 or not. If not, then the rod's intrinsic > length must have changed; however, if it is coincident, then > distant simultaneity is not relative because the rod's ends > could be used to absolutely synchronize clocks at X1 and X2. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Physically speaking, as was noted above, there are only two possibilities for the location of the rod point R2, namely, (i) it is AT the clock, or (ii) it is NOT at the clock. Which one do you choose? I, PD, choose (i) ______ I. PD, choose (ii) ______ /bjones/
From: Strich.9 on 24 Dec 2008 09:15 On Dec 23, 3:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Why? Nobel prizes are specifically given to those who buck the status > quo Another delusion of yours? How many Nobels did Tesla get? > Gee, I hope you're not trying to take care of yourself. It seems you > don't have enough fiscal sense to carry an ATM card, let alone be sent > to the grocery store alone. You are all talk PD. Let me do this poker move: I'll bet all my money against all your money that I have more money than you. Winner take all. Don't tell me you are folding? > Is someone preparing your meals for you? Most of the time. I take it you don't go out much. I like Japanese food. You don't even need to use your left hand. In the more expensive places, you don't even need to use your hands :)
From: PD on 24 Dec 2008 09:34 On Dec 24, 7:26 am, bjones <ni...(a)4sure.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:03:34 -0800 (PST), > > PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > -snip- > > >I don't know why you think an affiliation protects from theft. > >What on earth gave you that idea? > > The more people involved, the better the protection. Sorry, but the institutional affiliation does not buy you involvement. Researchers at academic institutions are expected to do *independent* research, though collaborative teams may be required for projects with multiple objectives or that require parallel task management. This is part and parcel with so-called academic freedom. You earn the right to do *independent* work that does not need supervision or support from others. > > >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. > > -snip- > > But not from an unknown with no affliations. > I cannot even "get published" in the newsgroup, or, if > I do get a foot in the door, then it is slammed shut. > > Here is an example: > > Check out this thread: > Newsgroups: sci.physics.research > Subject: Need Help With c-Invariance > > Notice that there is only one reply ("Blake Winter"). > I sent in a reply to Mr. Winter days ago, but it never > showed up. It was stonewalled by the mod. because it > blew away both Winter and SR. (My initial post got in > only because I carefully worded it as a non-attack.) > > If I am instantly rejected (as soon as my real work is > seen) in a mere newsgroup, then how easy will it be for > me to get published in a legit journal? I understand your frustration, but this is an illustrative case. Posters on this newsgroup do not display their institutional affiliations. You do not know mine or in fact whether I even have one. And so your success in eliciting response on this newsgroup *cannot possibly* have to do with your lack of institutional affiliation. All the more reason for you to reconsider the content of your posts and ask yourself the serious question, "If my posts get ignored on a newsgroup where affiliations do not even enter into the picture, then why do I think that content is being ignored by journals on the basis of my lack of affiliation?" > > -snip- > > >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. > > Well, I should not have to work around when it comes to > a valid scientific discovery. I disagree completely. Valid scientific discoveries do not come with any guarantee of visibility. Visibility is the product of hard work and creative measures for *everyone*, though the measures are different depending on your professional position. You may think this is onerous, and it is, but it is not unfair. > Also, Wolfram was rich, and > I am not. And Bayer may not have been more persistent - > I have been trying for a good long while. (You have seen > only part of the story.) > > -snip- > > >That is correct. Ideas do not get copyrighted, > >even in science. > > But you claimed otherwise just a while ago. And you rightfully corrected me on the law. I overstated the protection. > This eliminates the web solution for me. I disagree. See below. > > >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? > > There have been disputes over authorship, and they get > worse the more important the material is. That's correct. And how do you think that gets resolved? How do you think it gets resolved when the initial public release is in arXive.org and not by publication in a print journal? > > I would say that a permanent record in a legit physics > journal is pretty good protection. Anything else is > less good. That's a value judgment on your part, an artificial estimation of YOUR PREFERENCE. You may not be in a position to exercise your preference. So, given that you do not have the luxury of choice, what are you willing to do to gain visibility and assert your priority to these ideas? PD
From: PD on 24 Dec 2008 09:36
On Dec 24, 8:15 am, "Strich.9" <strich.9...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 3:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Why? Nobel prizes are specifically given to those who buck the status > > quo > > Another delusion of yours? How many Nobels did Tesla get? I didn't say everyone who bucks the status quo gets a Nobel. I said Nobels are given to those who buck the status quo. Please pay attention. > > > Gee, I hope you're not trying to take care of yourself. It seems you > > don't have enough fiscal sense to carry an ATM card, let alone be sent > > to the grocery store alone. > > You are all talk PD. Let me do this poker move: I'll bet all my money > against all your money that I have more money than you. Winner take > all. Don't tell me you are folding? Sorry, that's a foolish, 3rd grade dare. No interest. You still seem to have not enough fiscal sense to be trusted to go to Home Depot with a list. > > > Is someone preparing your meals for you? > > Most of the time. I take it you don't go out much. I like Japanese > food. You don't even need to use your left hand. In the more > expensive places, you don't even need to use your hands :) |