On posting etiquette and anonymity - Split from Why are Physics Speculations ....

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Again, have you ever submitted a manuscript for peer review?

Mostly I got not an answer at all, but here an answer typical for this situation. Everybody wont say anything.

 

 

Ref.: Ms. No. INJP-D-12-00098

Reason for metastable state discovered Establishing causality in nature again

Indian Journal of Physics

 

Dear Dr. Willimczik,

We had sent this article for review to more than 2 reviewer, unfortunately none of them has given their comments. One of our Editors commented that Affiliation Address is missing in the manuscript and adequate references are not mentioned along with recent works published in the Indian Journal of Physics. Therefore I am unable to proceed further with this paper.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

Yours sincerely

Editors IJP

Editor-in-Chief

Indian Journal of Physics

[John Cuthber]

Why won't you understand that the reason you were turned down by that journal, and the reason that your idea was trashed here is simple.

It's wrong.

 

Anyway, I think you should know better than to insult Drs Kelly and Nutt.

[Klaynos]

If you are to operate in the scientific community you need to learn to distance yourself from your ideas. A discussion of the ideas is not a discussion of you.

[swansont]

he never said my saying is wrong, but my entire theory, ergo my work of my life. And with taking only 1 negative source from 100.

Further he claims to be Mister reality - only he is able to decide what is reality and what not.

Such unqualified remarks destroy an entire discussion, destroy an entire idea. And I take this very personnel.

Americans say: I am pissed off.

 

That's no excuse for treating other people shabbily. An attack on an idea is not a personal attack. If you wrap up your self-worth in the idea, then you are responsible for that. Not anybody else. This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos.

 

how dare you making such difference - using your private self self tailored definition?

 

It's not private, nor self-tailored.

 

 

to suppress 99% of available information is not an attack?

 

What is being suppressed?

 

 

How can an admin claim I attacked somebody personnel, if I attacked his writing only.

Besides I am in Florida and have never seen the person, which I allegedly personal attacked.

Has he now the same nose?

 

Personal, not physical. Calling someone an idiot would be an example of a personal attack.

 

Ergo:

What you say is wrong.

The rules are wrong.

This forum is wrong.

 

You don't get to decide the rules. If you don't like them, you are free to go.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Why won't you understand that the reason you were turned down by that journal, and the reason that your idea was trashed here is simple.

It's wrong.

The experiment has been done. Lots of space crafts have been launched into space, some of them towards and more of them away from the sun.

The effect which this new idea predicts would have been noticed.

Not least, because space craft designers are very careful.

 

Since no such effect was found we can rule out this idea.

 

If someone's idea does not agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

You proved the sun rotate around the earth.

Congratulations!

 

Th

What is being suppressed?

Look in the last postings. The saboteur found a overwhelming number of sources with Google exactly in line with my theory. He suppressed them all deliberately and viciously and cited the one which has doubts and take this as "proof" my theory is wrong. You thing this vicious behavior is not personnel? It is clear Zersetzuung.

You can't have both of us.

 

 

 

You don't get to decide the rules.

 

Who made the rules if it is not a private forum?

There seems to be the problem.

 

I have over 40 videos in youtube with discussions, where never happen things like here.

Think about it.

There is only a small change necessary...

Edited April 19, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[pwagen]

You can't have both of us.

Do we get to vote one out?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Who made the rules if it is not a private forum?

There seems to be the problem.

I believe I wrote most of them, based on earlier rules written by fafalone and with plenty of input from our moderators.

[swansont]

Look in the last postings. The saboteur found a overwhelming number of sources with Google exactly in line with my theory. He suppressed them all deliberately and viciously and cited the one which has doubts and take this as "proof" my theory is wrong. You thing this vicious behavior is not personnel?

 

How is disagreement the same as suppression, much less vicious suppression? Have your posts been deleted?

 

And no, disagreement with your hypothesis is not personal. I, and, others, disagree with people regularly on these forums, when they present material that is unsubstantiated by credible evidence and/or contradicts how nature has already been observed to behave. You are all treated the same. It's not personal.

 

 

Who made the rules if it is not a private forum?

There seems to be the problem.

 

The site owners and staff made the rules. You are a guest here, you do not own the place. It is not public in the sense that a park is a public area. While most are welcome, those that persistently break the rules are not. If the rules are not to your liking, you are free to leave and go to some other site that is run in a way that suits you, or you can start up your own.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

I believe I wrote most of them, based on earlier rules written by fafalone and with plenty of input from our moderators.

and you never ask your guests!

Look to youtube where it works.

 

How is disagreement the same as suppression, much less vicious suppression? Have your posts been deleted?

Why do you call a vicious lie "disagreement"?

(You could - with this logic - call breaking somebody’s nose also "disagreement".)

There is not a single observation what "proves my theory wrong" - therefore he is a vicious liar.

If this is with the rules I am proud to have now - points, because they are very positive in a negative environment?

And no, disagreement with your hypothesis is not personal.

repeating yourself make it not right.

You can't dictate what other persons feel.

You did not answer my question. Why can you permanent - all the time - post here?

Edited April 19, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[krash661]

i think the bottom line is,

 

the journals rejected this thought for reasons,

 

but I'm not sure.

 

can you provide the link to where this thought of yours is, i could not find it in this topic.

[swansont]

and you never ask your guests!

Look to youtube where it works.

 

We strive to be better than youtube comments.

 

Why do you call a vicious lie "disagreement"?

 

You're wrong about some things. That's not a lie, much less a vicious one.

 

 

 

repeating yourself make it not right.

 

Right back atcha, pal.

 

 

You can't dictate what other persons feel.

 

No, but saying that it's not personal wasn't about you. I'm not deconstructing your argument because of who you are, meaning it's not personal for me. I'm deconstructing your argument because it's a poor argument.

 

You did not answer my question. Why can you permanent - all the time - post here?

 

You appear to have an extraordinary sense of entitlement about my personal information. Why is that? Are you a spy of some sort?

 

Anyway, it's news to me that I post here all the time.

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

i think the bottom line is,

 

the journals rejected this thought for reasons,

 

but I'm not sure.

 

can you provide the link to where this thought of yours is, i could not find it in this topic.

I never hold back such information.

 

http://science-technology-inventions.weebly.com/

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/InventorWillimczik

http://www.wolfhartindustries.com/

[Arete]

Why can you permanent - all the time - post here?

 

 

Without trying to flaunt - I managed to produce 6 publications last year and regularly post on the forum. Your assertion that forum participation and scientific productivity are mutually exclusive would appear to be incorrect.

 

Fortunately, my employer considers public communication and outreach to be an important part of being a scientist, so I don't think he would care too much about me spending a sensible amount of time participating in discussions here.

 

However the institution I work at has strict policies regarding information officially affiliated with it, so I restrict that to my personal webpage, which is not connected to my profile here as to allow me freedom to say things without the risk I will inadvertently say something that breached my employer's policies.

[Phi for All]

 

Anyway, it's news to me that I post here all the time.

 

I sincerely hope W's comments don't cause you (or anyone) to decrease the amount of time you spend here. W seems to be flailing around, trying to lift his leg at anything he can. I know his vitriol holds little value for you but none of us are immune to being poisoned.

 

I think it's clear that W is following a well-known path towards vindication by banishment. He gets banned because of his attitude but will brag later that it was because of his ideas.

[krash661]

this is all about

 

The most advanced water hydraulic motor ?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

 

We strive to be better than youtube comments.

 

..and made is worse.

 

You're wrong about some things. That's not a lie, much less a vicious one.

If you can't even distinguish between an disagreement and a vicious lie you are not able to make this discussion.

You should not waist your time.

R

 

 

No, but saying that it's not personal wasn't about you. I'm not deconstructing your argument because of who you are, meaning it's not personal for me. I'm deconstructing your argument because it's a poor argument.

It is still very personnel for the victim.

You appear to have an extraordinary sense of entitlement about my personal information. Why is that? Are you a spy of some sort?

 

Anyway, it's news to me that I post here all the time.

I never picked you. You picked me blocking any decent discussion,

Why are just you I have to put with all the time?

Why are you always present if I write?

Are you stalking me?

[swansont]

It is still very personnel for the victim.

The solution is to be less wrong.

I never picked you. You picked me blocking any decent discussion,

Why are just you I have to put with all the time?

Why are you always present if I write?

Are you stalking me?

I was here before you. If I'm stalking, that's a hell of a feat, wouldn't you say?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

Without trying to flaunt - I managed to produce 6 publications last year and regularly post on the forum. Your assertion that forum participation and scientific productivity are mutually exclusive would appear to be incorrect.

 

Fortunately, my employer considers public communication and outreach to be an important part of being a scientist, so I don't think he would care too much about me spending a sensible amount of time participating in discussions here.

 

However the institution I work at has strict policies regarding information officially affiliated with it, so I restrict that to my personal webpage, which is not connected to my profile here as to allow me freedom to say things without the risk I will inadvertently say something that breached my employer's policies.

You seems to be a decent person and I tried a discussion wich people like you, but this is not possible, because always the same jump in crashing the party.

There is also a first glance difference. The admin behind the man with the gun stalking me has over 22 000 postings - you under 1000.

He is only policing the forum.

At youtube admins get not involved in discussions. The police act also so. For a private forum it would also be okay.

[krash661]

if this whole issue is about,

 

The most advanced water hydraulic motor ,

 

then why not submit for a patent ?

then find a manufacturer ,

then sell this product and distribute it.

 

rather than spending time on this forum arguing the science of it ?

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

 

The solution is to be less wrong.

and you determine who is wrong and who is write. Rule No 1

What for discuss anything?

 

 

I was here before you. If I'm stalking, that's a hell of a feat, wouldn't you say?

Of course - you are the hero, the prosecutor – and I the defendant. That’s why you demand to answer all your questions and you answer not my questions.

 

if this whole issue is about,

no - this is the link: http://science-technology-inventions.weebly.com/

can't you find it?

 

The most advanced water hydraulic motor ,

 

then why not submit for a patent ?

I have the patent. You can read it in my website

 

then find a manufacturer,

I manufacture it in my own corporation.

 

then sell this product and distribute it.

Do you want one?

 

 

rather than spending time on this forum arguing the science of it ?

I am sick and can't do what I want...

[John Cuthber]

and you determine who is wrong and who is write.

No, the evidence does that- if you ever present any.

 

You looked in Google and you found many sources, which are all in line with my new theory – one even word for word!

There was only one what said no with an older date - and you copied only this line. - and you claim this is realyty. You put the world upside down!

To suppress 99% of scientific statements is not a lie? Supporting this is not dictatorship?

Would you like to clarify exactly what you are referring to?

When others have asked you say it's to do with something I wrote earlier but it's written in a direct reply to the first post I made in this thread so there's nothing for it to refer to.

 

What do you claim I looked for in Google and ignored the results?

[swansont]

and you determine who is wrong and who is write. Rule No 1

 

I can determine that some things are right or wrong, because I can evaluate evidence and apply physics to the problem, and you just happened to post on a subject where I can make that determination. The discussion of metastable states is part of QM.

 

What for discuss anything?

Of course - you are the hero, the prosecutor – and I the defendant. That’s why you demand to answer all your questions and you answer not my questions.

 

You're making the claim of a new theory, so the burden of proof lies with you. The answers to what standard physics has to say can be found in pretty much any graduate QM textbook. But when I've tried to answer you, you've rejected it out of hand, so why should I bother?

 

[mooeypoo]

Alright, Wolfhart Willimczik, enough.

What you say is wrong.

The rules are wrong.

This forum is wrong.

Luckily for everyone, you don't make the rules. In fact, when you joined this forum, you marked this nice little ticker that said you agree to follow the rules of this forum. I can assure you, no paragraph in it stated you're in a position to insist on continuously abusing the rules in case you disagree with them.

 

There's a saying in the military: If you piss on the army, it gets wet; if the army pisses on you, you drown. So while no one is going to literally expel waste on you, I do hope you take this analogy to heart, because we're gettin' mighty moist here.

 

The problem is not your ideas. Your ideas, wrong or right, are the reason this forum exists (yay for everyone!) -- the problem is your attitude, and unfortunately for you, this is a non-negotiable problem that will be solved either by you correcting your ways or us correcting them for you, as politeness and decent attitude is the least we owe our members.

 

This whole thing went way too far, so here's the bottom line for the clearest clarity:

 

!

Moderator Note

ENOUGH WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS. Enough with ridicule. Enough with equating people to obscure silly analogies. We'd like to continue discussing your ideas, because we have nothing against ideas or theories even if they're not mainstream -- but if you continue to insult people, you will no longer get the chance to participate.

 

If you dislike this message, you are fully within your rights to take matters to your own hands and leave on your own. If you are going to take matters to your own hands and continue disobeying the rules, you may notice your posting privileges will start getting diminished. That'll be a shame.

 

Please don't respond to this moderation note. Also, if it wasn't clear, I'm not really giving you much choice. Go by our rules, or go away.

 

 

Cheers, and welcome to ScienceForums!

 

~mooey the whip lady

[Wolfhart Willimczik]

John Cuthber, on 19 Apr 2013 - 13:28, said:

No, the evidence does that- if you ever present any.

 

 

Would you like to clarify exactly what you are referring to?

When others have asked you say it's to do with something I wrote earlier but it's written in a direct reply to the first post I made in this thread so there's nothing for it to refer to.

 

What do you claim I looked for in Google and ignored the results?

You deny everything I wrote, but you presented a vicious lie as "Evidence" without any backup.

I just took your own words and proved that the sun returns around the earth.

You know exactly what you did and above I wrote what you did. But here again:

you looked in Google and you found out the odds that my theory is right are 100 : 1.

You took the one as "evidence" my theory is wrong and not reality (that means you)

To suppress deliberately 99% of available information is like a vicious lie.

You don't like my theory - you don't like me - why are you still here?

 

The rule is if you have a claim you have to present the evidence.

 

swansont, on 19 Apr 2013 - 13:33, said:

 

I can determine that some things are right or wrong, because I can evaluate evidence and apply physics to the problem, and you just happened to post on a subject where I can make that determination.

and why are you in conflict with me and all other physicist, which made observations in this matter.

Why are you claiming only you are able to evaluate evidence?

Are you God?

 

Now I am threatened to be drowned in the piss of an army by another admin. (Here must be a nest.)

 

Of course you can drown me in your piss, but as Giordano Bruno, Galileo and other physicists,

I will never deny the truth.

I said the same thing to the Stasi as the put me in jail.

They killed many people, but they could never kill an idea.

Do you think you can do it?

Now do your worst.

- 25 points - and proud of it.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Wolfhart Willimczik

[Arete]

You deny everything I wrote, but you presented a vicious lie as "Evidence" without any backup.

 

 

The point of my insistent questioning about whether or not you've ever submitted an article for peer review is that the criticism you've received here is NOTHING compared to what reviewers for a journal will do. Even if the idea has merit, it will be picked apart. You'll be told to revise many points of it. And even if your methodology is sound, the idea is of merit and the written in a concise and understandable manner, it can be (probably to almost definitely will be in top journals) rejected as "not being a significant enough contribution to the field".

 

Criticism of ideas is part of science. Rejection of ideas and work is part of the game. Virtually EVERY single scientist - even the most brilliant has had a paper rejected. Virtually EVERY single scientist has had a grant application rejected. It's not personal and it's part of the job. Sure, it's not fun being told your work "isn't a significant contribution", or being told your new idea has been tested before, or you forgot to incorporate a fundamental parameter, rendering your model fatally flawed, but it happens. And it happens to everyone.

 

Throwing a hissy fit and accusing people of being dictators for critiquing your work wins you negative points. If you can't handle it, science isn't for you.