Announcement of new Can. Sci. Rep.
Juan R.
to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science Reports;
Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective dissemination
of last knowledge in this unified theory.
The publicationzone/ contains the new section canonicalsciencereports/
devoted to the journal. The section is directly accessible from the
navigation zone
http://www.canonicalscience.org
More info on CST:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone
/canonicalsciencetoday/20081001.html
Note: the announcement is only available on pdf format.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> To serve better to research community, students, and general people, and
> to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science Reports;
> Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective dissemination
> of last knowledge in this unified theory.
>
> The publicationzone/ contains the new section canonicalsciencereports/
> devoted to the journal. The section is directly accessible from the
> navigation zone
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org
>
> More info on CST:
>
>
> Note: the announcement is only available on pdf format.
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
"editor-in-chief
JuanSHito R. González-Álvarez."
:-)
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> To serve better to research community, students, and general people, and
> to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science Reports;
> Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective dissemination
> of last knowledge in this unified theory.
Why do you talk about yourself in the third person?
[...]
Juan R.
Can you even read?
Or cannot...
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
(...)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
iii-nasty.html
Don't get tired from being trapped and banned?
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
Juanshito,
You are an idiot, I am not banned.
So, because no one would publish your crap, you decided to start your
own "journal". Problem is, people will continue to ignore your
crap. :-)
Juan R.
> I am not banned.
You are banned in many moderated newsgroups, forums... you also are in
the killfile of almost anyone. Your previous account was banned by
administrators...
Recently Peter was convinced to write to administrators for banning you
again, because your attempts to falsify the newsgroups archive, your
false accusations, and other nasty behavior from a troll as you
This is detailed here, including links to messages you tried to falsify:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
iii-nasty.html
I convinced Peter to stop, because the messages you tried to falsify are
still accessible in other archives (your plan was ridiculous :-) and
because if you were banned again from USENET, we would lost one of best
crazy posters of spr.
I still remember how we laugh for weeks with *your* nonsense: "hey
idiots, in relativity H = L when V = 0"
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
iii-nasty.html
ha ha ha ha ha ha
(snip lies by Dono)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
Have you noticed you never post anything positive here? All you do is
come here and whine.
Juan R.
(snip lie)
Your first message was example of "straw man" well-documented in
guidelines. For rest of your usual trolling, dishonesty, and nonsenses go
to
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Dono wrote on Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:15:35 -0700:
>
> > I am not banned.
>
> You are banned in many moderated newsgroups, forums... you also are in
> the killfile of almost anyone. Your previous account was banned by
> administrators...
>
I have no previous account, Juanshito.
You are having hallucinations again, time to take your pills.
> Recently Peter was convinced to write to administrators for banning you
> again, because your attempts to falsify the newsgroups archive, your
> false accusations, and other nasty behavior from a troll as you
>
Peter is an idiot, he can't calculate jack shit, like you.
Anyways, here I am, no administrator banned me for exposing you as a
fraud you are, Juanshito.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:12:52 -0700:
>
> (snip lie)
>
> Your first message was example of "straw man" well-documented in
> guidelines. For rest of your usual trolling, dishonesty, and nonsenses go
> to
>
> ii.html
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
It isn't a straw man when its' true. All you are doing is whine.
Go away.
Juan R.
(...)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
iii-nasty.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
JuanSHITO,
Since you are unable to publish your "works" in any accredited
journal, you decided to use your website as a publication.
You are now demonstrating that you are not only a FRAUD but also a
MEGALOMANIAC. Looking forward to seeing your "papers published",
Juanshito :-)
PD
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> To serve better to research community, students, and general people, and
> to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science Reports;
> Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective dissemination
> of last knowledge in this unified theory.
Self-publication is always a viable option for frustrated authors who
are tired of being rejected by publishers.
>
> The publicationzone/ contains the new section canonicalsciencereports/
> devoted to the journal. The section is directly accessible from the
> navigation zone
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org
>
> More info on CST:
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
fifo
maybe his paper is higher than you level
PD
maybe you level is in different demenshun
with your people, as you say
Juan R.
> On Oct 2, 10:10 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> To serve better to research community, students, and general people,
>> and to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science
>> Reports; Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective
>> dissemination of last knowledge in this unified theory.
>
> Self-publication is always a viable option for frustrated authors who
> are tired of being rejected by publishers.
As usual you never solve problems asked, you just avoid them and start
lies.
1)
Provide a reliable solution to *all* questions discussed in the
announcement. Dont' forget to include the address of an adequate on-line
repository for open access.
2)
Do you know what is peer review?
3)
If after being peer-reviewed and published you believe that some
published work is incorrect you always can write a commentary and submit
it. Do you know what a "comment on" is?
4)
Very well recognized expertises including some Nobel Laureates, have
expressed his support of the canonical program. This includes invitations
from editors of journals to publish in their own journals [##].
They will be listed and quoted, in a special website section still in
preparation.
This news is also available in moderated sci.physics.foundations, where
nobody is writing the idiocies, insults and lies, that two well-known
trolls and one anonymous coward are writing here.
More info on CST:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone
/canonicalsciencetoday/20081001.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
The Draper family
González-Álvarez at juanR...@canonicalscience.com wrote on 10/4/08 3:36
AM:
> PD wrote on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:18:53 -0700:
>
>> On Oct 2, 10:10 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>>> To serve better to research community, students, and general people,
>>> and to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science
>>> Reports; Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective
>>> dissemination of last knowledge in this unified theory.
>>
>> Self-publication is always a viable option for frustrated authors who
>> are tired of being rejected by publishers.
>
> As usual you never solve problems asked, you just avoid them and start
> lies.
Two comments
- I was not aware that I was under obligation to solve problems posed by
you, nor subject to criticism for failure to do so.
- I'm not aware of any lie in the statement that I made.
PD
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> 4)
> Very well recognized expertises including some Nobel Laureates, have
> expressed his support of the canonical program.
You are hallucinating again, Juanshito :-)
> This includes invitations
> from editors of journals to publish in their own journals [##].
>
To date you haven't published anything, so you are also lying,
Juanshito.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
> 4)
> Very well recognized expertises including some Nobel Laureates, have
> expressed his support of the canonical program. This includes invitations
> from editors of journals to publish in their own journals [##].
The support is /always/ from very important and very *anonymous*
people.
[...]
Juan R.
Juan R.
But anyone can see that your lie is based in your pathetic deleting of
the part of my message saying where people will be named:
(\blockquote
They will be listed and quoted, in a special website section still in
preparation.
)
Dishonest crackpots as you are never cited in the website. But you are
cited next
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:50:50 -0700:
>
> > On Oct 4, 12:36 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>
> >> 4)
> >> Very well recognized expertises including some Nobel Laureates, have
> >> expressed his support of the canonical program. This includes
> >> invitations from editors of journals to publish in their own journals
> >> [##].
>
> > The support is /always/ from very important and very *anonymous* people.
>
> But anyone can see that your lie is based in your pathetic deleting of
> the part of my message saying where people will be named:
>
> (\blockquote
> They will be listed and quoted, in a special website section still in
> preparation.
> )
...and my opinion will be suitably changed at such a time if this
actually happens. However, your predictions for the future tend not to
hit close enough to the mark.
Speaking of predictions for the future, whatever happened to that
manuscript which you were certain it was going to be published in a
peer reviewed journal or at the very least on your website? If you
were as certain now as you were then of the claims, where is it?
>
> Dishonest crackpots as you are never cited in the website. But you are
> cited next
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-f...
> ii.html
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to the
person who choose one solution to the problems.
> - I'm not aware of
> any lie in the statement that I made.
Ok, in his above exact writing, it is somewhat in the middle between a
lie and an insult.
But I remark again next point: nobody in moderated
sci.physics.foundations is doing the kind of scary comments, insults, and
insinuations are being done by the only three persons replying here. And
one is a banned troll and the other a well-known crackpot.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> On Oct 5, 11:56 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:50:50 -0700:
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 12:36 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>>
>> >> 4)
>> >> Very well recognized expertises including some Nobel Laureates, have
>> >> expressed his support of the canonical program. This includes
>> >> invitations from editors of journals to publish in their own
>> >> journals [##].
>>
>> > The support is /always/ from very important and very *anonymous*
>> > people.
>>
>> But anyone can see that your lie is based in your pathetic deleting of
>> the part of my message saying where people will be named:
>>
>> (\blockquote
>> They will be listed and quoted, in a special website section still in
>> preparation.
>> )
>
> ...and my opinion will be suitably changed at such a time if this
> actually happens.
But you are lying again...
Your childish inability to change has been noticed by several people both
here and in moderated sci.physics.research
Some examples of your nasty behavior are cited in the page devoted to you:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
As showed there, you wrote a lot of nonsense (as usual) and when people
noticed your notorious mistakes you defended yourself with pathetic:
>>> I will, of course, apologize if Juan can produce two meaningful
>>> citations from that book which supports his assertion that this
>>> *chemistry* textbook is a part of modern physics literature which
>>> does not treat mass as an invariant.
And other reader noticed how dishonest you are, because you never
apologize:
>> No you won't, because you won't choose to regard them as being
>> "meaningful" even if they really are.
> Speaking of predictions for the future, whatever happened to that
> manuscript which you were certain it was going to be published in a peer
> reviewed journal or at the very least on your website? If you were as
> certain now as you were then of the claims, where is it?
It is still under review.
Since you never go to the school, you may be ignorant of peer-review
process and of calendars but that is not my problem, is it?
My work will be available just when ready not before.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[...]
> > ...and my opinion will be suitably changed at such a time if this
> > actually happens.
>
> But you are lying again...
Nope.
Try to distinguish between lying and being a bit of a snot.
>
> Your childish inability to change has been noticed by several people both
> here and in moderated sci.physics.research
Not true! The number of instances of me calling someone a 'fucking
moron' - even when abundantly deserved - has dropped significantly!
OTOH the number of instances of me saying it in person has
proportionally gone up since then, so you might be right.
>
> Some examples of your nasty behavior are cited in the page devoted to you:
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-f...
> ii.html
>
> As showed there, you wrote a lot of nonsense (as usual) and when people
> noticed your notorious mistakes you defended yourself with pathetic:
The 'notorious' mistakes were copped to as soon as I realized they
were actual mistakes and not sour grapes on your part. How many of the
mistakes I highlighted in that thread did you admit to? Or even
discuss without hiding behind my typos or minor mistakes?
You weren't interested in a honest discussion so don't pretend.
>
> >>> I will, of course, apologize if Juan can produce two meaningful
> >>> citations from that book which supports his assertion that this
> >>> *chemistry* textbook is a part of modern physics literature which
> >>> does not treat mass as an invariant.
>
> And other reader noticed how dishonest you are, because you never
> apologize:
Except you never provided the cites I requested. Hard to make a case
for me being dishonest when you can't actually show me being
dishonest. Best you can do is show that I'm occasionally confused
about something.
It wasn't even such a overly difficult request! If you are going to
cite a chemistry textbook in an argument about relativity, then it
isn't unreasonable for you to actually show why it is relevant.
>
> >> No you won't, because you won't choose to regard them as being
> >> "meaningful" even if they really are.
Except you couldn't provide two citations from that book, so we'll
never know.
> > Speaking of predictions for the future, whatever happened to that
> > manuscript which you were certain it was going to be published in a peer
> > reviewed journal or at the very least on your website? If you were as
> > certain now as you were then of the claims, where is it?
>
> It is still under review.
After how many submission attempts? Hey, at least this one wasn't
dismissed as being fundamentally wrong.
How many journals have you submitted this to, and how long have you
been working on it? I can't help but wonder if the first number tops
10 and if the second number is above or below five years.
>
> Since you never go to the school, you may be ignorant of peer-review
> process and of calendars but that is not my problem, is it?
Wow, you got some stones to talk like that. Sure I'm ignorant of the
process because I'm yet to actually submit something. On the other
hand, nothing you have ever submitted has ever passed peer review
which explains why everything you 'publish' is self-published in
USENET or on your blog [which nobody reads].
Speaking of "ignorant of the peer-review process", help me understand
why you think a 16 page article should expand into a 46 page
manuscript? Even articles in _The Astrophysical Journal_ are rarely
that long, much less 40+ pages.
That reminds me. Why did you never post the full comments of the
referees back in June? Were those that you posted simply the least
unfavorable?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/28d2265dce3f43e7
>
> My work will be available just when ready not before.
How many times in past discussions did you cite your manuscript even
though it was unavailable. Now you want to float the argument that it
*isn't ready* ?! Even when the referees pointed out that the paper was
straight up /wrong/, you continued to persist in using it in your
arguments?
What's changed in 5 months?
I think this deserves to be re-visited in a few months, don't you
agree?
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Nobody cares about your guidelines.
PD
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> The Draper family wrote on Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:28:48 -0500:
>
>
>
> > González-Álvarez at juanREM...@canonicalscience.com wrote on 10/4/08
> > 3:36 AM:
>
> >> PD wrote on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:18:53 -0700:
>
> >>> On Oct 2, 10:10 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> >>> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >>>> To serve better to research community, students, and general people,
> >>>> and to fill own needs, the Center launches the new Canonical Science
> >>>> Reports; Center's dedicated 'living' journal for rapid and effective
> >>>> dissemination of last knowledge in this unified theory.
>
> >>> Self-publication is always a viable option for frustrated authors who
> >>> are tired of being rejected by publishers.
>
> >> As usual you never solve problems asked, you just avoid them and start
> >> lies.
>
> > Two comments
> > - I was not aware that I was under obligation to solve problems posed by
> > you, nor subject to criticism for failure to do so.
>
> You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to the
> person who choose one solution to the problems.
Nonsense. Wherever did you make up such a rule of conduct?
Yes, I know that you would like it a whole lot better if the world
operated the way you want it to.
>
> > - I'm not aware of
> > any lie in the statement that I made.
>
> Ok, in his above exact writing, it is somewhat in the middle between a
> lie and an insult.
Meaning neither one? Where is the lie?
>
> But I remark again next point: nobody in moderated
> sci.physics.foundations is doing the kind of scary comments, insults, and
> insinuations are being done by the only three persons replying here. And
> one is a banned troll and the other a well-known crackpot.
And I remark that the fact that only three people have chosen to reply
to your post here should also tell you something about the value of
what it is you are posting. That may also have bearing on the
perceived value of what it is you are posting elsewhere. Which in turn
relates to the comment I made about self-publication always being an
option for an author who sees value in his own work where others do
not.
PD
Eric Gisse
[...]
I love that I've been promoted to 'crackpot'.
When's the last time a crackpot admits error?
Juan R.
>> You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to the
>> person who choose one solution to the problems.
>
> Nonsense. Wherever did you make up such a rule of conduct? Yes, I know
> that you would like it a whole lot better if the world operated the way
> you want it to.
There are several ethical codes of conduct at use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
Canonical is here
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/identityzone/conduct.html
APS and ACS has their owns.
>> But I remark again next point: nobody in moderated
>> sci.physics.foundations is doing the kind of scary comments, insults,
>> and insinuations are being done by the only three persons replying
>> here. And one is a banned troll and the other a well-known crackpot.
>
> And I remark that the fact that only three people have chosen to reply
> to your post here should also tell you something about the value of what
> it is you are posting.
The question is not the number (3) but *who*: A well-known crackpot who
think that energy in SR is negative and imaginary, a banned troll who
likes to falsify ratings and archives, and you.
About values, well, being an *announcement*, it was waited no reply at
all. Just as is happening in moderated newsgroup spf.
> Which in turn relates to the
> comment I made about self-publication always being an option for an
> author who sees value in his own work where others do not.
This is another comment from you in the middle between a lie and one
insult.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
stric...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > My work will be available just when ready not before.
>
> How many times in past discussions did you cite your manuscript even
> though it was unavailable. Now you want to float the argument that it
> *isn't ready* ?! Even when the referees pointed out that the paper was
> straight up /wrong/, you continued to persist in using it in your
> arguments?
>
> What's changed in 5 months?
>
> I think this deserves to be re-visited in a few months, don't you
> agree?
>
>
>
> > --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
>
> Nobody cares about your guidelines.
Eric the liar, still spreading his disease.
stric...@gmail.com
> ii.html
>
> As showed there, you wrote a lot of nonsense (as usual) and when people
> noticed your notorious mistakes you defended yourself with pathetic:
>
> >>> I will, of course, apologize if Juan can produce two meaningful
> >>> citations from that book which supports his assertion that this
> >>> *chemistry* textbook is a part of modern physics literature which
> >>> does not treat mass as an invariant.
>
> And other reader noticed how dishonest you are, because you never
> apologize:
>
> >> No you won't, because you won't choose to regard them as being
> >> "meaningful" even if they really are.
> > Speaking of predictions for the future, whatever happened to that
> > manuscript which you were certain it was going to be published in a peer
> > reviewed journal or at the very least on your website? If you were as
> > certain now as you were then of the claims, where is it?
>
> It is still under review.
>
> Since you never go to the school, you may be ignorant of peer-review
> process and of calendars but that is not my problem, is it?
>
> My work will be available just when ready not before.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Eric is already a well known crook. He pretends to cite data, and is
never able to provide an appropriate reference. On top of that, he
displays ignorance of basic mathematics.
Juan R.
> On Oct 6, 12:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>
>> > ...and my opinion will be suitably changed at such a time if this
>> > actually happens.
>>
>> But you are lying again...
>
(snip a lie)
>> >>> I will, of course, apologize if Juan can produce two meaningful
>> >>> citations from that book which supports his assertion that this
>> >>> *chemistry* textbook is a part of modern physics literature which
>> >>> does not treat mass as an invariant.
>>
>> And other reader noticed how dishonest you are, because you never
>> apologize:
>
(snip another lie)
Fortunately people can obtain the facts from next link, (can see your
ignorance and arrogance, your lies, insults, what others think about
you...)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
>> It is still under review.
(snip straw man)
> How many journals have you submitted this to, and how long have you been
> working on it? I can't help but wonder if the first number tops 10 and
> if the second number is above or below five years.
Ha ha ha. This made me laugh.
The answer to the first is one (1).
Is not 10 the number of years that you were trying to get a degree?
Remember that people name you the multi-year supersenior.
The response to your second question is more difficult. An entire section
of the paper is based in research done on last year. Other sections may
be older but I do not have a calendar for those.
> Sure I'm ignorant of the
> process because I'm yet to actually submit something.
Everyone knew that.
(snip another lie)
> Speaking of "ignorant of the peer-review process", help me understand
> why you think a 16 page article should expand into a 46 page manuscript?
> Even articles in _The Astrophysical Journal_ are rarely that long, much
> less 40+ pages.
Actually it is 48 pages long, but that number is not still definitive.
Limitations in size is one of problems in current journals as explained
in the page 2 of the announcement
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencereports/20081.html
Moreover, reference 2 cited therein will contain further analysis of this
problem by several authors; for instance, Marye Anne Fox -Editorial
Advisory Board for CR– explains how the tendency to short articles is due
to "greed by some of commercial publishers".
/Canonical Science Reports/ breaks size limitation and does without page
charges!
>> My work will be available just when ready not before.
>
> How many times in past discussions did you cite your manuscript even
> though it was unavailable. Now you want to float the argument that it
> *isn't ready* ?!
You show again your proverbial ignorance of anything related to science.
It is not unusual for a scientist to cite one reference is not openly [#]
available, but will be in near future. The citation format, of course,
varies for each journal. This is the format for one journal:
http://scielo.isciii.es/revistas/im/iinstruc.htm
(\blockquote
Unpublished work in preparation, Ph.D. and Masters theses, etc., should
be mentioned in the text only, in parentheses.
)
Whereas other journals follow other conventions:
http://forms.aps.org/author/editrefs-prae.pdf
(snip a lie)
[#] But are available to some few: distribution lists, referees and
editors, coworkers, etc.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> Eric is already a well known crook.
Nobody doubts about that now.
> He pretends to cite data, and is
> never able to provide an appropriate reference. On top of that, he
> displays ignorance of basic mathematics.
Yes, but the main point in
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
is not about Eric well-known ignorance but about his dishonesty,
hypocrisy, lies, and arrogance.
This is why the title is about crackpots.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:32:39 -0700:
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:27 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: [...]
>
> >> > ...and my opinion will be suitably changed at such a time if this
> >> > actually happens.
>
> >> But you are lying again...
>
> (snip a lie)
>
> >> >>> I will, of course, apologize if Juan can produce two meaningful
> >> >>> citations from that book which supports his assertion that this
> >> >>> *chemistry* textbook is a part of modern physics literature which
> >> >>> does not treat mass as an invariant.
>
> >> And other reader noticed how dishonest you are, because you never
> >> apologize:
>
> (snip another lie)
Lie? Spot the lie.
Part you snipped:
Except you never provided the cites I requested. Hard to make a case
for me being dishonest when you can't actually show me being
dishonest. Best you can do is show that I'm occasionally confused
about something.
It wasn't even such a overly difficult request! If you are going to
cite a chemistry textbook in an argument about relativity, then it
isn't unreasonable for you to actually show why it is relevant.
>
> Fortunately people can obtain the facts from next link, (can see your
> ignorance and arrogance, your lies, insults, what others think about
> you...)
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-f...
> ii.html
Note that the 'facts' don't show me lying nor do they show me
admitting I was wrong. Nor do the 'facts' even have references so the
rare interested reader can read the show on his own.
Funny how the 'facts' were crafted purely to make me look stupid. So
much for guidelines.
>
> >> It is still under review.
>
> (snip straw man)
Do you even know what a straw man is?
Just admit you refuse to discuss what I wrote, instead of lying.
>
> > How many journals have you submitted this to, and how long have you been
> > working on it? I can't help but wonder if the first number tops 10 and
> > if the second number is above or below five years.
>
> Ha ha ha. This made me laugh.
>
> The answer to the first is one (1).
Really? Since the journal rejected your works previously, is it really
under review or are you just saying that to save face?
>
> Is not 10 the number of years that you were trying to get a degree?
Divide by two, subtract one. That's the correct number.
Where the hell do you even get 10 years from, anyway?
> Remember that people name you the multi-year supersenior.
Oh, that's where you get it from. Explains a lot.
You need quality control in your reading, as the only person to ever
use that stupid little phrase is someone who thinks you can introduce
curvature by changing coordinates.
>
> The response to your second question is more difficult. An entire section
> of the paper is based in research done on last year. Other sections may
> be older but I do not have a calendar for those.
What value of 'research' is being used here? Because after all your
arguing, you have repeatedly undermined your own argument by pointing
out that - for example - Schwarzschild behaves just like Newton at the
appropriate limit. That's of course not counting how you undermine
yourself by using fantastically pointless non-sequiturs like how there
is no gravitation in flat space.
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-v-academic.html
"And you seem to want a Newtonian limit to GR that gives you a) the
correct field equation for phi, b) the nonzero acceleration, and c) a
flat spatial metric. This simply does not happen in GR"
How are things like this supposed to support you?
>
> > Sure I'm ignorant of the
> > process because I'm yet to actually submit something.
>
> Everyone knew that.
Then why bother commenting? I know you gotta try to make me look
stupid at every opportunity, but you shouldn't try to be such a
guttersnipe.
>
> (snip another lie)
What part of it is lying?
You have no peer reviewed publications - I looked - and I'm yet to see
any evidence that anyone reads your blog.
>
> > Speaking of "ignorant of the peer-review process", help me understand
> > why you think a 16 page article should expand into a 46 page manuscript?
> > Even articles in _The Astrophysical Journal_ are rarely that long, much
> > less 40+ pages.
>
> Actually it is 48 pages long, but that number is not still definitive.
That's a book. Not a big one, but it sure isn't a journal article.
Fill in some more details and do the Russian scientist thing of
publishing the manuscript as a self contained piece.
Regardless: Why the hell does it take 48 pages to prove your thesis?
Why does it take 48 pages to prove that the weak field limit is
inconsistent with Newtonian gravitation?
>
> Limitations in size is one of problems in current journals as explained
> in the page 2 of the announcement
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
> canonicalsciencereports/20081.html
So because nobody will publish you, you will self-publish? I fail to
see how you are distinguishing yourself from other lofty figures like
Ken Seto.
Save the step and publish now, because I'm curious. I'm probably one
of the few who actually want to see this goddamn manuscript.
Either the fundamental thesis is correct or it isn't - no amount of
tinkering can save it if its' the latter case. So why not publish
before all that remains is your [repeated!] arguments getting smacked
down?
>
> Moreover, reference 2 cited therein will contain further analysis of this
> problem by several authors; for instance, Marye Anne Fox -Editorial
> Advisory Board for CR– explains how the tendency to short articles is due
> to "greed by some of commercial publishers".
Dude! What you want them to publish is a substantial fraction of a
BOOK.
If you can't condense your basic point into 5 pages that's meant for a
well-educated technical audience, then you have a fundamental
misunderstanding about the point of the academic journal. Or you have
serious topic drift and you don't know how to control it.
>
> /Canonical Science Reports/ breaks size limitation and does without page
> charges!
Or peer review! Or respect! Or any of the other qualities that
distinguish between a quality journal like _Nature_ and a shitheap
like _Galilean__Electrodynamics_!
Is there even one person in 'canonical science' that isn't you? Nope.
>
> >> My work will be available just when ready not before.
>
> > How many times in past discussions did you cite your manuscript even
> > though it was unavailable. Now you want to float the argument that it
> > *isn't ready* ?!
>
> You show again your proverbial ignorance of anything related to science.
>
> It is not unusual for a scientist to cite one reference is not openly [#]
> available, but will be in near future. The citation format, of course,
> varies for each journal. This is the format for one journal:
What about when ALL of the fundamental references are unpublished and/
or private? That's your case.
Your manuscript? Private.
Your communications with the supposed experts on the subject? Private.
The referee report? Private.
All you have ever cited past that is Carroll and Wald. The former you
are yet to actually show fault, and the latter's contribution is
something that's pretty well known anyway.
>
> http://scielo.isciii.es/revistas/im/iinstruc.htm
>
> (\blockquote
> Unpublished work in preparation, Ph.D. and Masters theses, etc., should
> be mentioned in the text only, in parentheses.
> )
>
> Whereas other journals follow other conventions:
>
> http://forms.aps.org/author/editrefs-prae.pdf
>
> (snip a lie)
Supposed 'lie' :
How many times in past discussions did you cite your manuscript even
though it was unavailable. Now you want to float the argument that it
*isn't ready* ?! Even when the referees pointed out that the paper was
straight up /wrong/, you continued to persist in using it in your
arguments?
Neither of these are lies. The former is well established, and you
just defended the practice. The second is also well established, as
you quoted the goddamn referee saying that several of your derivations
were wrong.
Eric Gisse
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Eric is already a well known crook. He pretends to cite data, and is
> never able to provide an appropriate reference. On top of that, he
> displays ignorance of basic mathematics.
Remember that time I argued for weeks about how an error bar did not
represent one standard deviation?
Oh wait, that was YOU.
PD
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> PD wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:43:11 -0700:
>
> >> You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to the
> >> person who choose one solution to the problems.
>
> > Nonsense. Wherever did you make up such a rule of conduct? Yes, I know
> > that you would like it a whole lot better if the world operated the way
> > you want it to.
>
> There are several ethical codes of conduct at use
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
Yes, I see that. I don't see any of these that obligate one to provide
solutions to questions that you pose, regardless whether that one has
started to attack the person that has chosen one solution to the
problems. Perhaps you can point out which of these has that rule. Is
it by any chance the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism?
>
> Canonical is here
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/identityzone/conduct.html
Well, of course, you have the option of creating your own society,
based on rules of conduct that you have created, and to which you self-
publish articles about solutions you have chosen to questions that you
have asked. I have no idea what you expect the size of that society to
grow to.
>
> APS and ACS has their owns.
>
> >> But I remark again next point: nobody in moderated
> >> sci.physics.foundations is doing the kind of scary comments, insults,
> >> and insinuations are being done by the only three persons replying
> >> here. And one is a banned troll and the other a well-known crackpot.
>
> > And I remark that the fact that only three people have chosen to reply
> > to your post here should also tell you something about the value of what
> > it is you are posting.
>
> The question is not the number (3) but *who*: A well-known crackpot who
> think that energy in SR is negative and imaginary, a banned troll who
> likes to falsify ratings and archives, and you.
Well, I for one think that the number is important.
If you publish a book, and three and only three people buy the book
and send you comments on it: one a well-known crackpot, one a troll
that falsify ratings, and me, then what does that tell you about the
quality or appeal of your book?
>
> About values, well, being an *announcement*, it was waited no reply at
> all. Just as is happening in moderated newsgroup spf.
>
> > Which in turn relates to the
> > comment I made about self-publication always being an option for an
> > author who sees value in his own work where others do not.
>
> This is another comment from you in the middle between a lie and one
> insult.
Well, I've already asked you whether that is to mean neither one, and
you haven't answered. Where is the lie in what I've stated?
PD
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
JuanSHITO,
Bottom line is that you have NOT published ANYTHING.
So you are STILL the same old fart with delusions of grandeur.
stric...@gmail.com
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Eric is already a well known crook. He pretends to cite data, and is
> > never able to provide an appropriate reference. On top of that, he
> > displays ignorance of basic mathematics.
>
> Remember that time I argued for weeks about how an error bar did not
> represent one standard deviation?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey bozo, don't lie. The argument was about your source. Have you
found that source yet? Of course not, because you lied that you had
it.
stric...@gmail.com
And Dono is another cheerleader with runs in his stockings
Dono
Ostritch,
You have your head so far up your ass that you don't realize you are
an idiotard in leotards :-)
Eric Gisse
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Eric is already a well known crook. He pretends to cite data, and is
> > > never able to provide an appropriate reference. On top of that, he
> > > displays ignorance of basic mathematics.
>
> > Remember that time I argued for weeks about how an error bar did not
> > represent one standard deviation?
>
> > Oh wait, that was YOU.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hey bozo, don't lie. The argument was about your source. Have you
> found that source yet? Of course not, because you lied that you had
> it.
Its' called "shifting goal posts". You argued for 2 weeks - as well
with people other than me, if you recall - about the meaning of the
error bar claiming I had no data until I gave you the actual links and
ref's to the introductory statistics textbooks.
When you got the ref's, suddenly you thought you were talking about
the epheremes data source all along. Would you like to look at what
you actually said to see how long it took for you to change the
argument because you lost?
Not that it actually matters. The entire source of your whine was the
mistaken belief that precession data for Earth was somehow 'bad'
because the error bars were large despite willfully ignoring the fact
its' hard to measure small changes in nearly circular orbits.
Juan R.
(snip several lies + /ad hominem/)
>> Actually it is 48 pages long, but that number is not still definitive.
>
> That's a book. Not a big one, but it sure isn't a journal article.
This silly comment from you did me laugh.
Rest of readers would understand that the issue of size limitations on
current journals is an important problem affecting the current model of
academic publication; this problem (and others) are studied with some
detail in the reference [2] in the announcement:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencereports/20081.html
(snip several insults and lies)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
Juan R.
On Oct 6, 12:49 pm, strich.9...@gmail.com wrote:
(snip)
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
iii-nasty.html
>> > Bottom line is that you have NOT published ANYTHING.
>> > So you are STILL the same old fart with delusions of grandeur.
>>
>> And Dono is another cheerleader with runs in his stockings
> Ostritch,
>
> You have your head so far up your ass that you don't realize you are an
> idiotard in leotards :-)
Over 90% of your posts contains "old fart", "heads", and certain part of
the body.
*Something* about your childhood that you want say us?
We still can help you!
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:59:13 -0700:
>
> (snip several lies + /ad hominem/)
>
> >> Actually it is 48 pages long, but that number is not still definitive.
>
> > That's a book. Not a big one, but it sure isn't a journal article.
>
> This silly comment from you did me laugh.
>
> Rest of readers would understand that the issue of size limitations on
> current journals is an important problem affecting the current model of
> academic publication; this problem (and others) are studied with some
> detail in the reference [2] in the announcement:
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
> canonicalsciencereports/20081.html
So how is your announcement going to solve anything when your journal
has nobody in it but you?
>
> (snip several insults and lies)
Insults aren't ok? Then get your shit together and stop being a bitch
to me on here and on your website.
I note that you were unable and/or unwilling to show how I was lying,
but it doesn't seem to stop you from taking parting shots as you
scream IM NOT LISTENING TO YOU.
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> On Oct 6, 10:41 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> PD wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:43:11 -0700:
>>
>> >> You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to
>> >> the person who choose one solution to the problems.
>>
>> > Nonsense. Wherever did you make up such a rule of conduct? Yes, I
>> > know that you would like it a whole lot better if the world operated
>> > the way you want it to.
>>
>> There are several ethical codes of conduct at use
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
>
> Yes, I see that. I don't see any of these that obligate one to provide
> solutions to questions that you pose, regardless whether that one has
> started to attack the person that has chosen one solution to the
> problems. Perhaps you can point out which of these has that rule.
How many codes you studied? Zero?
Anyone who understood at least one of them knows they are general
guidelines for acceptable conduct, not a list of dumb rules for each
specific case of abuse that one may imagine.
In any case, the question is that you attacked one solution but continue
refusing to provide an alternative when you are asked to do that. This is
very unfair!
(snip)
>
>> APS and ACS has their owns.
But you will never be criticizing those...
> Well, I for one think that the number is important. If you publish a
> book, and three and only three people buy the book and send you comments
> on it: one a well-known crackpot, one a troll that falsify ratings, and
> me, then what does that tell you about the quality or appeal of your
> book?
But you start from false assumptions: that a book is the same than a
announcement (it is not, of course), that number is synonym of quality
(quality and popularity are not synonyms), that only three read (this is
plain false)...
The question is that only a well-known crackpot, a troll that falsify
ratings, and you, are posting silly comments and lies about an
announcement.
This does not happen in sci.physics.foundations for example. Is a
causality that none of three is posting in that moderated newsgroup?
(...)
The announcement news is here
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone
/canonicalsciencetoday/20081001.html
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
(...)
Juan R.
> On Oct 3, 5:37 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> Eric Gisse wrote on Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:12:52 -0700:
>>
>> (snip lie)
>>
>> Your first message was example of "straw man" well-documented in
>> guidelines. For rest of your usual trolling, dishonesty, and nonsenses
>> go to
>>
>> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-
f...
>> ii.html
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
>
(snip)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
>> (snip another lie)
>
> What part of it is lying?
>
> You have no peer reviewed publications - I looked - and I'm yet to see
> any evidence that anyone reads your blog.
It is interesting to notice how Eric and Dono make the same false
accusations. It is so easy to show how liars are both of them...
My early works on the new canonical science, were distributed via
Elsevier CPS, but unfortunately Elsevier -biggest academic publisher-
closed it by economic issues. They also closed similar publications
services for mathematicians and computer scientists.
Elsevier system contained an open peer service with academicians
commenting openly on all submitted works.
Moreover, Elsevier got all rights for the works accepted. More about
economic and copyright issues in reference [2] of the announcement
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone
/canonicalsciencetoday/20081001.html
Fortunately, my initial works on canonical science are still indexed in
scholar engines
http://scholar.google.es/scholar?num=50&hl=en&lr=&q=j-r-gonzalez-alvarez
+canonical&btnG=Search
A reformed and updated version of my early work "Has thermodynamics been
violated in the quantum domain?" will be available in open access (no
membership, no registration, no nothing) in Can. Sci. Rep. about the end
of this year.
My other publications in (non-canonical) science are available following
the author link provided in above Scholar index. There one would obtain
some of my (pre-canonicalscience) papers, chapter in books, and
conference proceedings.
For see more common lies from Eric and Dono see "the crackpot"
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
and the "nasty troll"
Juan R.
Sorry, if you click in the link, return the same references. Delete all
type "jr-gonzalez-alvarez" on the search bar and key search button.
That gives extra references. Using "j-r-gonzalez-alvarez" "r-gonzález-
álvarez prego" and other combinations gives more.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
PD
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> PD wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:13:09 -0700:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:41 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> PD wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 06:43:11 -0700:
>
> >> >> You are under the ethical obligation, once you start to attack to
> >> >> the person who choose one solution to the problems.
>
> >> > Nonsense. Wherever did you make up such a rule of conduct? Yes, I
> >> > know that you would like it a whole lot better if the world operated
> >> > the way you want it to.
>
> >> There are several ethical codes of conduct at use
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct
>
> > Yes, I see that. I don't see any of these that obligate one to provide
> > solutions to questions that you pose, regardless whether that one has
> > started to attack the person that has chosen one solution to the
> > problems. Perhaps you can point out which of these has that rule.
>
> How many codes you studied? Zero?
Actually, I graduated with a degree in philosophy, emphasis ethics.
>
> Anyone who understood at least one of them knows they are general
> guidelines for acceptable conduct, not a list of dumb rules for each
> specific case of abuse that one may imagine.
Yes, that was precisely my point. Your dumb rule doesn't seem to be
covered by any of these.
>
> In any case, the question is that you attacked one solution but continue
> refusing to provide an alternative when you are asked to do that. This is
> very unfair!
According to you. But then again, you are inventing your own set of
conduct rules and expecting others to abide by them, social contract
or no.
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> >> APS and ACS has their owns.
>
> But you will never be criticizing those...
>
> > Well, I for one think that the number is important. If you publish a
> > book, and three and only three people buy the book and send you comments
> > on it: one a well-known crackpot, one a troll that falsify ratings, and
> > me, then what does that tell you about the quality or appeal of your
> > book?
>
> But you start from false assumptions: that a book is the same than a
> announcement (it is not, of course), that number is synonym of quality
> (quality and popularity are not synonyms), that only three read (this is
> plain false)...
The book was hypothetical for the purpose of looking at the
conclusions one might draw from a light reception. You can also
consider the conclusions one might draw from a light reception to an
announcement.
>
> The question is that only a well-known crackpot, a troll that falsify
> ratings, and you, are posting silly comments and lies about an
> announcement.
What lies? You've made this comment several times and then backed off,
saying that the comments are somewhere between a lie and an insult.
Then you call them lies again, without explaining what is false about
the statement made. Calling something a lie that you know not to be a
lie, is in itself a lie and a violation of your own code of conduct --
you do know this, do you not?
>
> This does not happen in sci.physics.foundations for example. Is a
> causality that none of three is posting in that moderated newsgroup?
>
> (...)
>
> The announcement news is here
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
stric...@gmail.com
> snip 1 month of damage control
Eric, you will forever be the crook unless you produce that source of
data you supposedly quoted.
Till then... Well, we'll never get there would we?
stric...@gmail.com
Ken S. Tucker
On Oct 7, 5:12 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2:03 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
...
> > How many codes you studied? Zero?
>
> Actually, I graduated with a degree in philosophy, emphasis ethics.
SPF is a well moderated, generally polite
and ethical forum, therein I asked Juan
if he had ever applied his new and improved
metric to the EFE's .. received no response.
Asked how he calculates the orbit of Mercury,
..no response.
In my considered opinion, his claim to any new
scientific expertise is a fabrication though
he may not know it...he's truthfully ignorant.
Once the *smoke and mirrors* are removed he
has a notion, that may be sound, but I doubt it.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
Ask nicely and I'll copy and paste the source for the epheremis data
so you can ignore it.
How's the VA today?
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-f...
> iii-nasty.html
>
> >> > Bottom line is that you have NOT published ANYTHING.
> >> > So you are STILL the same old fart with delusions of grandeur.
>
Juanshito,
PD
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:59:13 -0700:
>
> >> (snip another lie)
>
> > What part of it is lying?
>
> > You have no peer reviewed publications - I looked - and I'm yet to see
> > any evidence that anyone reads your blog.
>
> It is interesting to notice how Eric and Dono make the same false
> accusations. It is so easy to show how liars are both of them...
>
> My early works on the new canonical science, were distributed via
> Elsevier CPS, but unfortunately Elsevier -biggest academic publisher-
> closed it by economic issues. They also closed similar publications
> services for mathematicians and computer scientists.
>
> Elsevier system contained an open peer service with academicians
> commenting openly on all submitted works.
>
I'll just comment that work *submitted* to a peer-refereed journal is
not equivalent to publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
If you think those two are equivalent, then you are simply lying to
yourself, which is what I believe others have been trying to explain
to you.
PD
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
> Fortunately, my initial works on canonical science are still indexed in
> scholar engines
>
> http://scholar.google.es/scholar?num=50&hl=en&lr=&q=j-r-gonzalez-alvarez
> +canonical&btnG=Search
>
Dear dirtbag
The search points back to ....your website. Self-publishing isn't
publishing, Juanshito :-)
stric...@gmail.com
I don't need to ask nicely Mr. Crook. It's your name on the line.
Plus, as I said, you'll never be able to produce that source. If you
can, you would have produced it weeks ago to avoid embarassment. Go
on Mr. Crook, bluff all you want. There is no data.
Eric Gisse
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Eric Gisse wrote on Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:59:13 -0700:
>
> >> (snip another lie)
>
> > What part of it is lying?
>
> > You have no peer reviewed publications - I looked - and I'm yet to see
> > any evidence that anyone reads your blog.
>
> It is interesting to notice how Eric and Dono make the same false
> accusations. It is so easy to show how liars are both of them...
Easy to *say* - harder to *do*. As a rule I am honest, which means the
only [honest] avenue of insult against me is that I'm a bit of an
asshole on occasion.
Which explains why you resort to snipping entire blocks of my replies.
>
> My early works on the new canonical science, were distributed via
> Elsevier CPS, but unfortunately Elsevier -biggest academic publisher-
> closed it by economic issues. They also closed similar publications
> services for mathematicians and computer scientists.
Elsevier is a preprint archive, like arXiv.
Try again.
>
> Elsevier system contained an open peer service with academicians
> commenting openly on all submitted works.
Not the same as peer review. Getting comments is hardly comparable to
passing peer scrutiny prior to publication.
>
> Moreover, Elsevier got all rights for the works accepted. More about
> economic and copyright issues in reference [2] of the announcement
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
You willingly signed over the copyright when you submitted your
works.
Don't bitch about contracts you didn't read. Unlike a Microsoft EULA,
the terms for publication aren't an onerous read especially to someone
in a technical field.
Phrases that mention the journal retaining copyright should be among
the things that stick out and make you think for a second.
Modify your article slightly, and woosh! Its' yours again. That's how
I'm told it actually works. But then again I listen to people who
actually do this for a living as opposed to people who pretend.
>
> Fortunately, my initial works on canonical science are still indexed in
> scholar engines
>
> http://scholar.google.es/scholar?num=50&hl=en&lr=&q=j-r-gonzalez-alvarez
> +canonical&btnG=Search
None of these are published in a peer reviewed journal.
>
> A reformed and updated version of my early work "Has thermodynamics been
> violated in the quantum domain?" will be available in open access (no
> membership, no registration, no nothing) in Can. Sci. Rep. about the end
> of this year.
Thank you for making my point for me by pointing to self-publication.
>
> My other publications in (non-canonical) science are available following
> the author link provided in above Scholar index. There one would obtain
> some of my (pre-canonicalscience) papers, chapter in books, and
> conference proceedings.
None of which are published in peer-reviewed journals.
Again, thank you for making my point for me.
>
> For see more common lies from Eric and Dono see "the crackpot"
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-f...
> ii.html
You ever going to quote me apologizing and admitting error? Or would
that undermine my status as crackpot?
Hard to label me as a crackpot when I admit I fuck up once in awhile.
>
> and the "nasty troll"
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-f...
> iii-nasty.html
>
> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Eric Gisse
Snarky! Did the nurse forget to bring you your fruit cup this morning?
stric...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What? Still no data source? Crook.
Eric Gisse
Juan R.
>> > Yes, I see that. I don't see any of these that obligate one to
>> > provide solutions to questions that you pose, regardless whether that
>> > one has started to attack the person that has chosen one solution to
>> > the problems. Perhaps you can point out which of these has that rule.
>>
>> How many codes you studied? Zero?
>
> Actually, I graduated with a degree in philosophy, emphasis ethics.
>
>
>> Anyone who understood at least one of them knows they are general
>> guidelines for acceptable conduct, not a list of dumb rules for each
>> specific case of abuse that one may imagine.
>
> Yes, that was precisely my point. Your dumb rule doesn't seem to be
> covered by any of these.
Which indicates you did not understood them.
>> But you start from false assumptions: that a book is the same than a
>> announcement (it is not, of course), that number is synonym of quality
>> (quality and popularity are not synonyms), that only three read (this
>> is plain false)...
>
> The book was hypothetical for the purpose of looking at the conclusions
> one might draw from a light reception. You can also consider the
> conclusions one might draw from a light reception to an announcement.
The point was that both situations (real and your hypothetical) are not
directly comparable.
(snip another lie)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
> SPF is a well moderated, generally polite and ethical forum, therein I
> asked Juan if he had ever applied his new and improved metric to the
> EFE's .. received no response. Asked how he calculates the orbit of
> Mercury, ..no response.
The instant which I decided to ignore your nonsensical postings in SPF
was just when you decided to misread everything and invent stuff.
Now, above you *invent* the existence of a new and improved metric. You
did *dream* that and now ask me for the application of something is in
your mind to the EFE.
I just do not waste time replying your nonsense.
Moreover, you still do not understand the difference between a geodesic
(GR) and an orbit (FTG), which was the point of discussion at SPF.
(snip)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
(...)
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> snip <
Dear scumbag
The search for your "published" papers points back to ....your
Juan R.
> What? Still no data source? Crook.
I have not followed your interchange with Eric in detail but let me an
advice: Eric often claim 'expertise' and ability to provide 'data' and
'references' supporting his silly comments but he fails to provide them.
Last time he promised us would give dozens of references supporting his
'Lagrangians' and 'Hamiltonians' is covered next
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-samples-of-usenet-fauna-
ii.html
Eric never could provide a reference because he was selling nonsense.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
Dono
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>snip<
Dear scumbag
PS: why do you keep posting at alt.crackpot, Juanshito? Is this
beacuse that is the forum you belong to?
Juan R.
> Elsevier is a preprint archive, like arXiv.
Elsevier is a publisher *not* an archive. CPS was a preprint service but
was closed.
> You willingly signed over the copyright when you submitted your works.
Then I was inexpert.
> Modify your article slightly, and woosh! Its' yours again. That's how
> I'm told it actually works.
If you had read my complete message before reply you discovered that is
exactly I will do.
(snip a lie)
>
>> My other publications in (non-canonical) science are available
>> following the author link provided in above Scholar index. There one
>> would obtain some of my (pre-canonicalscience) papers, chapter in
>> books, and conference proceedings.
>
(snip a lie)
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
(...)
Juan R.
Juan R.
> I'll just comment that work *submitted* to a peer-refereed journal is
> not equivalent to publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
Not apply because If you read I wrote you can see I used the word
*distributed* when referring to early works in canonical science
available via Elsevier CPS.
> If you think those two are equivalent, then you are simply lying to
> yourself, which is what I believe others have been trying to explain to
> you.
First, I never said both to be equivalent.
Second,, Both Eric and Dono are trying several lies. Eric wrote the lie
(\blockquote
You have no peer reviewed publications - I looked
)
which is false (it is Eric who lacks any publication and even degree).
And Dono is now spreading the lie that my research works indexed in
Scholar are works self-published in my website!!!!
To remark how dishonest Dono troll is, then my website did not even
existed!!!
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
stric...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, Eric, it's not my reputation on the line. As long as you cannot
produce your data source, you will forever be a crook. Good luck
Crookie.
Juan R.
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:58:28 -0700:
>
>> SPF is a well moderated, generally polite and ethical forum, therein I
>> asked Juan if he had ever applied his new and improved metric to the
>> EFE's .. received no response. Asked how he calculates the orbit of
>> Mercury, ..no response.
>
> The instant which I decided to ignore your nonsensical postings in SPF
> was just when you decided to misread everything and invent stuff.
>
> Now, above you *invent* the existence of a new and improved metric. You
> did *dream* that and now ask me for the application of something is in
> your mind to the EFE.
Better rewriten as
"You did *dream* that and now ask me for the application to the EFE of
something is only in your mind."
Evidently I cannot reply that kind of stuff.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
iqgo...@gmail.com
Dono: Duh, I Dunno.
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, understood, you're unable to reply.
Juan you must acquire an understanding,
of Mercurys orbit prior to thinking of
yourself as an authority on GR.
Even a nice fella like myself had your
knickers off with a couple of questions,
could you imagine what a hard expert
could do to your theory?
Ken
Juan R.
> On Oct 7, 11:18 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> "Juan R." González-Álvarez wrote on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:25:05 +0200:
>>
>> > Ken S. Tucker wrote on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:58:28 -0700:
>>
>> >> SPF is a well moderated, generally polite and ethical forum, therein
>> >> I asked Juan if he had ever applied his new and improved metric to
>> >> the EFE's .. received no response. Asked how he calculates the orbit
>> >> of Mercury, ..no response.
>>
>> > The instant which I decided to ignore your nonsensical postings in
>> > SPF was just when you decided to misread everything and invent stuff.
>>
>> > Now, above you *invent* the existence of a new and improved metric.
>> > You did *dream* that and now ask me for the application of something
>> > is in your mind to the EFE.
>>
>> Better rewriten as
>>
>> "You did *dream* that and now ask me for the application to the EFE of
>> something is only in your mind."
>>
>> Evidently I cannot reply that kind of stuff.
>
> Ok, understood, you're unable to reply.
Evidently, as anyone who was not inside your head.
> Juan you must acquire an
> understanding, of Mercurys orbit prior to thinking of yourself as an
> authority on GR.
I see you to continue to mix orbits with geodesics. Did not read my past
warnings? I wrote in SPF "do not mix apples and oranges" but you insist
in mix everything.
I speak of geodesics for GR and of orbits for FTG, AAAD, DPI theories,
because as is well-known they are not equivalent.
> you see
> Even a nice fella like myself had your knickers off with a couple of
> questions, could you imagine what a hard expert
> could do to your theory?
I see that you are not reading and you want turn this into pure /ad
hominem/.
To reveal your *lie*, the thread in SPF was not about "my theory", (again
you invented that) but a discussion about differences between GR and FTG,
DPI, and AAAD.
And as explained in this thread I abandoned any discussion with you on
SPF not because your questions were difficult but because them are
crazy...
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
Ken S. Tucker
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
...
> And as explained in this thread I abandoned any discussion with you on
> SPF
Ok, understood, you're unable to reply.
Juan you must acquire an understanding,
of Mercurys orbit prior to thinking of
yourself as an authority on GR.
Even a nice fella like myself had your
knickers off with a couple of questions,
could you imagine what a hard expert
could do to your theory?
Explain Mercury's orbit in your own terms.
(For 10 points)
Ken
Juan R.
> On Oct 8, 1:12 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: ...
>> And as explained in this thread I abandoned any discussion with you on
>> SPF
>
> Ok, understood, you're unable to reply.
Yes, I already said I am unable, as everyone else, because nobody is
inside your mind.
> Juan you must acquire an
> understanding, of Mercurys orbit prior to thinking of yourself as an
> authority on GR.
The SPF sub-thread was discussing differences between GR geodesics and
the orbits for FTG, AAAD, DPI theories. You never understood.
(snip /ad hominem/)
> Explain Mercury's orbit in your own terms. (For 10 points)
As stated in SPF you to continue to mix apples and oranges.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Dono
The search for your "published" papers points back to ....your
website. Self-publishing isn't
publishing, Juanshito :-)
PS: why do you keep posting at alt.crackpot, Juanshito? Is this
because that is the forum you belong to? Naughty, naughty :-)
Juan R.
Ken S. Tucker
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote on Wed, 08 Oct 2008 09:54:45 -0700:
>
> > On Oct 8, 1:12 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote: ...
> >> And as explained in this thread I abandoned any discussion with you on
> >> SPF
>
> > Ok, understood, you're unable to reply.
>
> Yes, I already said I am unable, as everyone else, because nobody is
> inside your mind.
>
> > Juan you must acquire an
> > understanding, of Mercurys orbit prior to thinking of yourself as an
> > authority on GR.
>
> The SPF sub-thread was discussing differences between GR geodesics and
> the orbits for FTG, AAAD, DPI theories. You never understood.
>
> (snip /ad hominem/)
Explain Mercury's orbit in your own terms. (For 10 points)
And prove me wrong!
> As stated in SPF you to continue to mix apples and oranges.
Well you mix dead horses with live ones.
You theory is DOA, I'm the vet, it died
2 paces out of the starting gate. What
ever you paid for it, you got shafted with
your knickers down! And now you owe me for
informing you that your horse is dead :-).
Ken
Ken S. Tucker
> On Oct 8, 1:14 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> > Dono wrote on Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:02:42 -0700:
> > (...)
> The search for your "published" papers points back to ....your
> website. Self-publishing isn't
> publishing,
Well legally it is, published as in public.
I'm considering publishing *hard copy* briefs,
(not a book), using a photocopier.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Eric Gisse
You are both equally clueless, but at least Juan hasn't called me a
plagarizer to my face and ran away.
Juan R.
(...)
You started an /ad hominem/, just because I (as almost everyone else)
decided to ignore your questions in SPF.
You were warned several times to not lie. but you continue liying and
making false accusations like your "could you imagine what a hard expert
could do to your theory?"
The entire discussion in both SPF and here was about the theories of
*others*: FTG (Feynman), AAAD (Stefanovich), and DPI (Vladimirov) orbits,
versus GR geodesics.
My patience has limits and you passed through enough.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Juan R.
(...)
I do not wait an ill troll as Dono to understand the difference between
self-publication, e-publication in Elsevier CPS and publication in
journals, but you disappointed me.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html