Graviphoton Posted May 27, 2008 Author Share Posted May 27, 2008 Which do you need help on, because the books are obviously mainstream, the one citing 'is gravity an electrostatic force' is noted in a reference in a wiki page, the ball of light model should also be found on the net... help me out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-GB%3Aunofficial&hs=jOT&q=%22is+gravity+an+electrostatic+force%22&btnG=Search&meta= Is it now... Also when referencing books it's best practise to give page numbers, or at least chapters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 an ISBN would be good too. that would help us more than the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted May 28, 2008 Author Share Posted May 28, 2008 I am not going to spend any more time here, because i am being asked the impossible. Also, because a few here can be condescending but that's beside the point. Thanks, i've enjoyed my stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 you aren't being asked the impossible. you are being asked what would be expected if you were to submit anything for even moderate reveiw. i guarantee that if you submitted a paper with the level of reasoning and referencing that we have seen from you that the paper wouldn't even get considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 So it seems when questioned he runs... http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24349 <-- should be read imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm a runner? Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 I'm a runner? Interesting. Answer our questions and requests for proper references then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Well, for starters, i want you to define ''proper references,'' because i don't really know what makes a reference proper or not. You'll have to teach me about that one, or i am ****ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 a proper reference by our standards is a link to where you got a bit of information from. the places where you say 'it is said that' or when you are talking about 'psychological units'(another thread) and stuff will require referencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 For preference peer reviewed journals, if it's books you need to give ISBN's and at least the publisher and year, relevant page numbers.... Some publishers are better at getting things reviewed than other for instance the IoP publishing reviewing is pretty much as harsh as their paper reviewing so their books are a good reference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Well, the psychological thread, is in fact a new creation, and anything said concerning quantum mechanics should be distinguished from the psychological. So i will not be refencing anything in that thread. Now, you will notice i provided some links, some... references. But it was argued they could not be trusted. I simply think i am not being treated fairly in the consideration, because the references, by scientific standards, are no more ''proper'' than any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Now, you will notice i provided some links, some... references. I can't see them can you post a link to the post? And I might be able to explain why people didn't like them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) If it comes to books, i would be more than happy to give all those details, so long as it not argued to be science pop, because in the end, i will not entertain the wilder theories of teleportation, for instance. So things like citing from, ''what the bleep do we know,' would in effect be a no, no. However, suffice to say, Dr Wolf appeared in that program. But i do not judge him overall through his appearance in it, and knowing him personally, he is very intelligent, and very reliable. Klaynos Here in this thread, OP at the bottom. Edited June 2, 2008 by Graviphoton multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Scientists make matter from light - Can't find. IT IS THE ACCELERATION OF ENERGY WITHIN A PARTICLE THAT PRODUCES MASS AND CONSEQUENTLY GRAVITY - Can't find. Grand Unification Theory: The Ball-of-Light Particle Model. - Can't find. Towards a Theory Of Everything: Matter as a Solution to Maxwell's Equations - Can't find. The Unit of Phisics - Can't find (nor The Unit of Physics) Dr Wolf is from what I read not a mainstream reputable citation on these things. That might be being a bit mean to him, it's certainly not technical references though from what I've seen. So I don't like most of your references because I can't find them... at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Let me find one for you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Well, the psychological thread, is in fact a new creation, and anything said concerning quantum mechanics should be distinguished from the psychological. So i will not be refencing anything in that thread. Just because an idea is new does not mean you can legitimately ignore existing knowledge on the topic. Your idea may add to the literature, but it still must be founded on that literature, or clearly show where it is better than the existing. To simply assert "So I will not be referencing anything in that thread," is akin to being an immature child who is throwing a tantrum. If you want to do science, then you must abide by the process. If you do not or refuse to, then you're ideas will remain as crap in perpetuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) [[Note]] Please do not grill me about publication rights. I obviously hold no publication rights of tis work, so as soon as it has been digested by the readers here, it will be removed. OUT OF PURE LIGHT, PHYSICISTS CREATE PARTICLES OF MATTER September 16, 1997 [mod note: copyrighted material removed. See link below.] Just because an idea is new does not mean you can legitimately ignore existing knowledge on the topic. Your idea may add to the literature, but it still must be founded on that literature, or clearly show where it is better than the existing. To simply assert "So I will not be referencing anything in that thread," is akin to being an immature child who is throwing a tantrum. If you want to do science, then you must abide by the process. If you do not or refuse to, then you're ideas will remain as crap in perpetuity. Excuse me??? A tantrum? Over what??? I was even told by one of the more demanding of the members here that references where not really needed in that thread. And i am probably more of a scientist than you think, so i will retain to my own scientific methods, thank you very much. Edited June 2, 2008 by swansont multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) So you are aware, the proper way to have cited the idea above would have been to use the actual article, not the press release describing it. Here ya go, I've helped you out this time: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v79/i9/p1626_1 Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering A signal of 106±14 positrons above background has been observed in collisions of a low-emittance 46.6 GeV electron beam with terawatt pulses from a Nd:glass laser at 527 nm wavelength in an experiment at the Final Focus Test Beam at SLAC. The positrons are interpreted as arising from a two-step process in which laser photons are backscattered to GeV energies by the electron beam followed by a collision between the high-energy photon and several laser photons to produce an electron-positron pair. These results are the first laboratory evidence for inelastic light-by-light scattering involving only real photons. EDIT: More on topic: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/e144.html http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/e144/science1202.html http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/nytimes.html http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/physnews.337.htm And i am probably more of a scientist than you think, so i will retain to my own scientific methods, thank you very much. How's that workin' out for ya? Edited June 2, 2008 by iNow multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 I don't appreciate your sarcasm. My methods work fine for me. It's other people that it doesn't work well with them. Big difference. And thanks, i guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 Btw... It's also a good idea to provide a link to the source from which you copy/pasted: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 Noted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 From the linked PR: "That knocked the photon backward with such tremendous energy that it collided with several of the densely packed photons behind it and combined with them, creating an electron and a positron." That's energy-to-matter conversion. Neater than all get-out, to be sure, but in no way supports the contention that the new particles are made out of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted June 2, 2008 Share Posted June 2, 2008 On the above cited article it in no way backs up your conclusion that massive particles are trapped photons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graviphoton Posted June 2, 2008 Author Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) What do you mean by massive particles, caps. For me, i think about neutrinos as an example. It is within current understanding among physicists that even neutrino-antineutrino combo reduced into photon energy... Or Klaynos, even. Sorry. Edited June 2, 2008 by Graviphoton multiple post merged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now