Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

In American jurisprudence, slander is considered oral defamation that is non-permanent, while libel is considered print/permanent defamation. Libel is usually more serious, because of its permanent nature. It now encompasses all forms of print, as well as video, etc. I believe internet publications would fall under libel laws, even if they are not as 'permanent' as printed material.

I believe the same is true in other common-law-origin jurisdictions such as the UK and Australia, though I've not studied those areas of the law as extensively.

One can be held liable for either libel or slander. Truth, however, is always a valid defense, even if the material is defamatory. It has to be false defamation in order to obtain legal liability attached to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

None!! I was just making the point that I keep asking everyone to return to physics.

I clearly pointed out to AlphaNumeric that the "Electron" is not a point particle but has structure. But, his and your, form of refuting physics involves personal attacks; not defending the physics. This is a clear expample of claiming to be an authority about things that you and he have not studied!

I can defend myself. I have been given power to tread on scorpions, serpents, principalities, powers, and over all the power of the enemy of this world; whose tactics he is able to use through you and others that I have encountered on this forum.

But, I prefer to defend "Physics"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for the clarity Walter L. Wagner.

So that would mean that if someone calls your "published" work a "Fraud" without reading the material, as claimed in written online print (internet forums), that would hold someone in contempt or liable for "Libel?"

Published meaning that it is filed with the US copyright office, Library of Congress, and has an International Standard Book Number (ISBN). Not to mention is being bought and sold all over the world!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many did you sell? If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck your "book" is still...crap!

 

Sarcasm just doesn't convey as well as I'd like over the Internet! Everyone else understands the difference between libel and slander, but in the monologue in which you hoped to outline your legal prowess, you managed to confuse the two. To add fuel to the fire, you then confused the words "liable" and "libel". This coming from the man who would say

Wow - you must feel pretty daft right now!

 

Let me state it another way: It is perfectly possible to plagiarise in research without ever copying a single word (and, conversely, possible to infringe on copyright without ever plagiarising). However, yours was the lowest form of plagiarism: wholesale lifting of sentences and phrases without attribution, presenting it as your own doing. That kind of plagiarism may indeed involve copyright infringement, but, frankly, that aspect is completely unworthy of attention when compared to the, well, plagiarism of it all.

However, to comment on your "defence": The idea/expression divide is not relevant, as the ideas in text that you plagiarised were clearly expressible in countless different ways. The non-free content/fair use quotes relates to uses of copyrighted material, which, as everybody except yourself seem to realise, isn't what you've been accused of, here.

So, there.

No, I don't think I will.

 

It does? Mainstream science says you are full of it.

delusions, Delusions and more DELUSIONS!

 

You are wrong. So there!

If the statements were unique to science or a particular author, then, I would have cited "Wiki."

I am a professional, and I am ok with when, I choose to cite, or not to cite "Wiki."

If I copied the whole paragraph verbatim, you would have a case. This was not the case.

So, give it a rest!

Now do some Physics.

 

You, have absolutely no idea!!!

You, demonstrate lots of "Fear!!"

 

So you didn't ask the moderators to intervene and evaluate defamatory claims?

http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/Futurama-Where-No-Fan-Has-Gone-Before.html

By the way, Walter L. Wagner should be congratulated for his classy entrance given the heated arguments he and some frequent posters in this thread have had. This is one poster who isn't going take baseless charges of sockpuppetry laying down.

// Edit:
Oh, and AlphaNumeric. You seem to still owe me a PM

 

Nope, I am aware of rules, and follow all rules and the law. I am serious about returning to physics, and I am documenting it.

I know that the moderators of this forum are on your side, or agree with you!

Did you forget to take your medicine again this afternoon??

 

Surely it's a simple exercise for a moderator to identify any sockpuppet shenanigans? Whilst there are certain members I am more than happy to be compared to, there are others for which I find the comparison downright insulting!

 

Look, George James Weatherill and all of his "sockpuppets", I will make the same statement to you that I made to RPenner.

Those that live in "Glass Houses" should not throw "Rocks" period!!

 

I would assume that when a moderator is good enough to confirm we are different people, you will extend your wholehearted apologies our way?

Or do you deal with false accusations in the same way you deal with plagiarism? Flat out denial...

 

Do you think people are stupid? You could have registered with different internet email accounts. And you could have made sure that you have an internet account that rotates the IP addresses.

Your Ph.D has clouded your thinking, about the capacity of others!!


Let's do some Physics!!

 

I don't think all people are stupid. Certainly some.

I am happy to ask the powers that be if they have the means to detect which country we are posting from. For instance, I know that my country of residence is different to that of rpenner and AlphaNumeric.

I appreciate the capital letters in your request, but I'm afraid Robert Louis Kemp has been caught plagiarizing and it's going to take a little more than a large font and bold type face to make the matter go away.

 

You didn't respond to a single point I made. Asserting that I am wrong does not make it so.

What is that supposed to mean?

So you think it's okay to not give an attribution if a text has multiple authors?

Your feelings are irrelevant to whether or not you plagiarised.

Seriously, how many times do we have to do this? Are you really silly enough to believe that plagiarism requires outright verbatim quotes?

Don't think I will, no.

 

I did! You are completely wrong. Does that make it better?

The statements/sentences in the post are completely common to those that have an understanding of Maxwell's Equations. Therefore some statements of fact would be common to all authors: For example, lets go back to where I pulled the sentences.

The wiki paragraph is given as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#Maxwell's_equations

"Like all vector fields the B-field has two important mathematical properties that relates it to its sources. (For magnetic fields the sources are currents and changing electric fields.) These two properties, along with the two corresponding properties of the electric field, make up Maxwell's Equations. Maxwell's Equations together with the Lorentz force law form a complete description of classical electrodynamics including both electricity and magnetism.

The first property is the divergence of a vector field A, ∇ • A which represents how A 'flows' outward from a given point. As discussed above, a B-field line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop. This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of B is zero. (Such vector fields are called solenoidal vector fields.) This property is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles. The electric field on the other hand begins and ends at electric charges so that its divergence is non-zero and proportional to the charge density (See Gauss's law).

The second mathematical property is called the curl, such that ∇ × A represents how A curls or 'circulates' around a given point. The result of the curl is called a 'circulation source'. The equations for the curl of B and of E are called the Ampère–Maxwell equation and Faraday's law respectively. They represent the differential forms of the integral equations given above.

Magnetic field, like all pseudovectors, changes sign when reflected in a mirror: When a loop of wire (black), carrying a current is reflected in a mirror (dotted line), the magnetic field it generates (blue) is not simply reflected in the mirror; rather, it is reflected and reversed. The complete set of Maxwell's equations then are:"​

Here is my paragraph:

A magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop. This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of the (B-field) is zero. The magnetic vector fields are called solenoid vector fields; meaning that there is no starting or stopping point. This property that a magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles.​

-------------------------------------------------
Wiki

As discussed above, a B-field line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop.​

Magneto_1

A magnetic (B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop.​

Wiki did not start the sentence this way. The above sentence with me adding clarity about what a "B" field is common understanding to all. And this exact sentence would be written by anyone that understands Maxwell's equations. This sentence does not belong to Wiki. I have the right whether to cite "Wiki" as a source, or choose not to because I added clarity to this common sentence.

Therefore, I choose not to cite "Wiki" here.

Wiki

This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of B is zero. (Such vector fields are called solenoidal vector fields.) ​

Magneto_1

This is mathematically equivalent to saying that the divergence of the (B-field) is zero.​

This exact sentence would be written by anyone that understands Maxwell's equations. This sentence does not belong to Wiki. I have the right whether to cite "Wiki" as a source, or choose not to; this is a common sentence to science.

Therefore, I choose not to cite "Wiki" here.

Magneto_1

The magnetic vector fields are called solenoid vector fields; meaning that there is no starting or stopping point.​

This is my original sentence. This exact sentence would be written by anyone that understands Maxwell's equations. This sentence does not belong to Wiki. I have the right whether to cite "Wiki" as a source, or choose not to; because I added clarity to this common sentence in science.

Therefore, I choose not to cite "Wiki" here.

Wiki

This property is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles. ​

Magneto_1

This property that a magnetic ( B-field) line never starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop is called Gauss's law for magnetism and is equivalent to the statement that there are no magnetic charges or magnetic monopoles.​

The above sentence with me adding clarity about what "starts or ends at a point but instead forms a complete loop" I added, and the rest of the sentence is common understanding to all. Also the sentences are not identical. And this exact sentence would be written by anyone that understands Maxwell's equations. This sentence does not belong to Wiki. I have the right whether to cite "Wiki" as a source, or choose not to because I added clarity to this common sentence in science.

Therefore, I choose not to cite "Wiki" here.

If the work is a book, journal, or personal paper, then it would be proper to cite the reference.

Based on my personal changes to the paragraph, and I considered that information and statements common to all; it was not necessary to attribute or cite "Wiki."

I also could have changed the paragraph on "Wiki's" website adding my personal remarks to the paragraph. Then to whom would I give attribution?

I did not plagiarize, period. Even if your biased opinion makes you think that it is so. You are entitled to your own opinion. But, I firmly disagree.

I am stating that I did not plagiarize.

I bet you think that "Pink Elephants do fly, and you don't care what anyone thinks!"

Yes. I believe that plagiarism requires outright verbatim quotes. And under the "Fair Use" act, I did not lift enough of the paragarph to qualify under the term "plagiarism."

I did not use any paragraph or sentence verbatim; I only used those sentences as confirming evidence of my understanding; and that which is common information that any knowledgeable physicist about Maxwell's equation would state personally. I have written a paper on Maxwell's Equations that verifies my expertise on the subject.

See here: THE QUANTIZATION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC CHANGE


You must be an idiot also!!

The problem is that you are only able to see what you want to see. I bet you think that "Pink Elephants do fly, and you don't care what anyone thinks!"

I have already cited the proper mechanical defense; which you completely ignore; See below.

Idea-expression divide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea-expression_divide

Some courts have recognized that there are particular ideas that can be expressed intelligibly only in one or a limited number of ways. Therefore even the expression in these circumstances is unprotected, or extremely limited to verbatim copying only. In the United States this is known as the merger doctrine, because the expression is considered to be inextricably merged with the idea.​

Wikipedia:Non-free content

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non_free_content#Text

Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea.

Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.​

Fair use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Amount_and_substantiality

The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use.​

Give it a rest!! I know that you don't see this. But you are embarassing yourself!!

Let' see you do some Physics!!

 

There is a subtle consideration to think about when its comes to an open or closed universe. If the universe is expanding relative to the galaxies, while the galaxies themselves are contracting into spirals, stars, blackholes, etc., do these opposing space-time vectors add? If they do add, did we under estimate the mass of the universe by adding the contraction to the expansion?

The analogy for space-time expansion is often a balloon that is inflating so the dots on the surface of the balloon all expand at the same time. In the above consideration, we will add two ants on the expanding balloon surface who are attracted to each other. They will simulate the gravity within the galaxies. As the balloon expands, the ants move apart in space-time as well as move together. This vector addition will slow the speed at which they appear to approach; lowered apparent mass-gravity since the attraction seems slower. This lowered estimate of the mass could make a closed universe appear open.

 

I don't know if extensive use of cut-and-paste for various sources including Wikipedia and one's own posts is the best way to go about refuting charges of plagiarism.

I need to shift computers, but to supplement Mr. Kemp's admission of the elements of plagiarism, I would like to present a simple forensic analysis when I return after traveling and feeding my family.

One more point before I lose my Internet access:

Substantially similar at least in parts to http://photontheory.com/Kemp/Kemp.html but easier on the eyes.