Big Bang or Big Bounce Model of the Universe?

I'm all for avoiding a flame war, which is why it's so upsetting to see someone like Magneto making personal attacks on my educational background (as well as others) as if it somehow added substance to his arguments. Have you bothered to take the issue up with him, or do you only reserve your complaints for people who disagree with the things you write? In any case, even if I was a high school dropout, it wouldn't make any difference- we're chatting anonymously on the internet as if this was some kind of cafe, it's not a physics symposium. I never asked anyone to believe something just because CptBork and his partners in crime said it was true.

Magneto wants to further his own arguments by claiming that my work isn't taken seriously in the scientific community. I could have chosen to keep silent on the issue, but I'm perfectly entitled to refute his claim, since it's a complete farce- big time money is being spent, and my research is having a major impact on how that money is being spent and what the future priorities will be, for better or worse. It doesn't mean I'm a hotshot superstar- there are hundreds of scientists involved in this project who are in a position to cause major budget overruns if they screw up- but my competence is clearly trusted far enough that my results have been used to influence real, substantial decisions, to the point where I myself have had to caution them about the tentativeness of these results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I haven't taken up my objections to M1s comments because he has been responding to attacks and I give people leeway to return the flames.

I didn't notice his comments about you and apparently they were in error. Shame on him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Guest254 & AlphaNumeric (Sockpuppet 1 of Many)

This is that last time that I am willing to comment on this issue again.

Your claims of plagiarism are slanderous and completely false.

You, don't understand "Copyright Law" or "Fair Use" and because I am a writer, I am completely aware of what is within my rights. And I follow the law completely.

I know that you don't understand many things. You think because you have a Ph.D that makes you knowledgeable; this is false. What makes you knowledgeable is study and research. And yes, I have also studied "Law;" Which includes "Patent Infringement Law", and "Copyright Law."

And I am completely aware of that Ph.D research that you brag about does not belong to you. That research and the writings belong to the University that you graduated from. If you want to publish your work in other places, you have to get permission from the university, to ok you, to use your own work. How sad!

I am in no predicament like that. My work is my work, period!

Now back to the "Copyright Law."

I know that your "little brain" does not understand what I am about to say, so pay close attention.

First:

Wikipedia is in a unique situation when it comes to "fair use" of their public material. The issue is in the evolving nature of their material. First what is listed and written on "Wiki" today, will not be the same information two (2) to three (3) years from now.

So policing information that changes is an issue that they are not even able to deal with. The information on "Wiki" is not "static" but is "dynamic;" and dynamic information or information that changes regularly is not so enforceable with the law.

The law can easily enforce "static" information. For example, sentences listed in "Harry Potter" books are static and are not changing. Therefore copyright infringement is enforceable by the law.

Second:

I am trying to write and present this for laymen understanding; which is what you are. When it comes to science and "Fair Use" on "Wiki" because of its evolving nature there are paragraphs of information that are "complete facts" that they know that they do not own. They "Wiki" can only own "Unique" text. Text that is written/listed on "Wiki" and someone reads and they conclude that that is common information; they do not own and is open to fair use without citation back to "Wiki;" and you are free to use at will!

The patent office deals with this all of the time, and it is no different with "Wiki." You cannot patent anything that is not "Novel." You can only patent and copyright anything that is "Novel"

This is why a sentence or a group of sentences listed together, that is fairly common to all, is "fair use", and common to all. Now it is courteous to cite back to "Wiki" for the information but not required by "Law"

Now it is "unlawful" to lift complete paragraphs without altering those paragraphs, and without citing the "source of the material" and claim the material as your own.

But, to lift a few sentences that is common understanding to the topic at hand is completely legal and is not considered plagiarism. Now as one versed in the "Copyright Law" I would feel comfortable stating the using anything more than four (4) sentences without altering is plagiarism.

This is a serious and not so serious dilemma for "Wiki." So much so, that it is not even talked about, and they let the public at large, work out what is and is not plagiarism. However, they have listed what they feel is within the law that they are comfortable with. See here.

I am completely aware of the law, the problem is you are not. So don't blame me for your ignorance.

And every piece of writing that I have presented on this forum falls within the rule of law of fair use.

Now don't bring up this issue again, without doing some research.

Since as you stated before, you did not have time to read anything worthwhile, because you were busy doing research on "Fluxes & Compactifications" which you don't own!!

I mean this, don't bring this up again, it is "Slanderous" and is akin to "Bearing False Witness" and against the "Law" you can be sued in court for that kind of thing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I believe that the Moderators should police "Slander" on this website.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But your "work" is pure junk that no one cares about. Same caliber as John Doofoos' "work" . Both of you have been pushing your "books" for quite a while. How many did you sell?

 

Would that you would also swear to never again plagiarize materials from web pages!

If untrue and you were a person with a positive reputation, they may be libel -- but as neither of those preconditions were present, the written claims (and demonstrations) of plagiarism are merely inconvenient to your marketing campaign and unflattering to your person.

A writer should know that first comma makes no sense.

US and International Copyright law and the US doctrine of "Fair Use" do not define plagiarism -- it is a misrepresentation of the work of others as your own work and therefore a serious breach of academic ethics (even the University of Phoenix says so!) and may, in circumstances perhaps different than these, amount to fraud or a violation of fair business practice laws.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/589/01/

It's probably because of the standard academic practice of widely citing your sources for quotes and even ideas that the US doctrine of "Fair Use" has such a large exception for education and scholarship.

You do not follow the law completely as it's outside your expertise to know the law completely. You probably don't even know the naked copyright treaties and statutes completely to say nothing of the relevant case law. As you didn't even understand what the charge of plagiarism amounted to, your claims about your following the law are self-serving and unsupported by evidence or rational argument. For plagiarism, it's not the amount of appropriated material that's relevant, it's that you clearly did appropriate it and not only failed to cite it as the scholarly work of others, but sought to hide the fact that it was copied (in an inept fashion which an uncharitable observer might describe as typical).

SciForums poster Walter L. Wagner has a Juris doctorate (J.D. = Law degree) but even that study and research does not allow him to understand all of the law. But as you don't understand the term "plagiarism" it's not so very convincing for you to discuss unrelated fields which you don't bother to connect with the claims at issue.

(Plagiarism has little to do with patent infringement, but can lead to patent invalidation as a defence to claims of patent infringement in the US if it is demonstrated at some subsequent time that the claimed invention is not novel, especially when relevant prior art was not fully disclosed as part of the application process.)

Under US law, that would be true for the product of a work-for-hire or following the execution of a transfer of rights. But the research in science belongs to everyone. Both copyright and patent law in the US are unanimous in the doctrine that you can't copyright/patent a simple fact, a law of nature or a mathematical innovation. Fiction, on the other hand, is much more protected.

But as AlphaNumeric can (and has) linked to on-line copies of his work, what specific use of it do you believe has been usurped by his university? He's certainly free to continue down that line of investigation at any time and make additional discoveries. He's free to use (copy) the ideas and equations (although he would be expected to cite their previously published source). He very well may have given up the right to run a publishing business where he prints copies of his Ph.D. thesis, but how does that harm him as a writer?

So you have no interest in contributing to the progress of science? Even Einstein's Special Relativity didn't "belong" to him. Minkowski's improvement of it was bitterly complained about by Einstein who eventually built on Minkowski's work to build General Relativity.

We are about a third of the way through your post and you seem to have forgotten that you addressed this post to two persons.

Your distinction is meaningless, since Wikipedia (demonstrated above) preserves often thousands of "static" revisions for various pages. Further, you do not begin to cite appropriate statutes or case law. (Further, case law is not on your side since an opera is a "dynamic" performance each night which is still protected by copyright to the point where it is illegal to sell bootleg video tapes of Carmen. ) Each revision has the full protection of copyright law unless placed in the public domain. Further the permissive license to use the present and past revisions do not place the revisions in the public domain, so if we were arguing that you violated copyright (we haven't so far) a defense would be to demonstrate that your use is licensed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...s_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

Your self-serving argument would imply the same about copying from any encyclopedia or similar tertiary reference, and therefore it must fail. Since you copied more than one sentence that actually followed an argument, the text in question is no simple "fact" but a creative exercise of the mind, and arguably fully protected by copyright (which is not the principle we have accused you of violating). But in admitting that you copied from Wikipedia (which was our claim) and admitting you feel no need to cite Wikipedia (which was our observation) then you have admitted that you have plagiarized from Wikipedia (which was our charge).

So while the facts may be common to a large number of textbooks since the 19th century, the particular word choices made clearly identified the text as being copied wholesale without significant creative exercise of your mind. That is why it is certainly plagiarism and arguably copyright infringement of some small measure (not that we raised this issue, you did).

Copyright law protects creative expressions (like a wikipedia page), patent law protects inventions (like a hypertext computer system). The US system doesn't allow something to be protected by both.

You still have not supported this claim with statute or case law. I believe you are making it up as a soi disant authority.

Not just courteous but required by academic ethics and by the University of Phoenix Faculty Handbook.

I assert that no statute or case law fixes the copyright violation threshold at "complete paragraphs." Prove me wrong. Further whenever you falsely claim material as your own you are lying and when you do this in the course of trade (like selling your book) then you may be breaching laws covering fair marketplace practices. But the issue at hand is plagiarism, not this red herring of copyright violation.

Bwahahahah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#In_academia_and_journalism

I am not a lawyer, and nothing I post should be construed as legal advice, but you are full of crap. This week I met the General Counsel of Wikipedia, so I have a better understanding of what "Wikipedia" (as an organization with assets and offices) knows. I've spent years researching aspects of the law, and know you are completely delusional to claim that you are "completely aware" of any aspect of the law as it applies to the charges made. For the most part it doesn't because we are addressing plagiarism. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=315562

While many examples of your most coherent writing run afoul of unsubtle plagiarism.

As a suggestion, it's neither advantageous to order people around when you have no authority to do so, or to arrogantly claim a position of authority based on knowledge to persons more knowledgeable.

When are you going to address Guest254? He must be feeling neglected by now.

Your obsession with some forms of ownership is not common to academia, where what matters is authorship -- the very thing you trample on with your misappropriation.

I strongly suggest that you consult with someone who actually passed the bar before making any more claims about what is or isn't legal. Also, "Libelous were it False and Harmed a Crackpot's Already Negative Reputation" and "Telling the Most Relevant Truths" and "Crackpot's Self-Asserted Rights" should replace your quoted terms.

I am strongly of the opinion that the Moderators should deliver a 10-day ban divided up between all posters on this thread proportional to their offensiveness. I am willing to raise the stakes to 100 days if you are.

 

This is not the proper forum to discuss "Case Law." And like I wrote, do you read? I was writing to laymens; this is a "Physics & Math" forum; which I am sure that you completely ignore!! What an idiot!!

And, by the way, loose some weight, you are at least sixty (60 lbs) pounds overweight!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.​

Once again give it a rest! and lose some weight!!

Now, do some physics!!

 

Please stop trying to threaten me as if you are going to report me to one of my employers.

Not, to mention, your threats are futile, because I am turning in my letter of resignation, tomorrow!

So, report all you like. They like the rest of the world will think of you as an idiot!!

 

I went back to re-read this nonsense, because your rationale and personal reasoning is completely hilarious!! :xctd:

First, it is completely illegal (against the law) to bootleg any (opera, play, movie, etc...) are you aware of this.

Maybe this is what you do on the side for a second job, perhaps it is your only job??

But, what is protected under copyright law in your example is the "Script" of the opera - "Carmen" in your case. The script “Carmen” is protected in the public domain, and so are any bootlegged copies of the work. The script is considered "Static." The dynamic interactions of the actors trying to follow the script, has nothing to due with what is or is not protected under copyright law. The script is fixed!

Therefore, there is no comparison with the "Dynamic" evolution of the information listed on "Wiki". The information list on the "Wikipedia" is not "Static." Your comparison is not equal. Stick with the mathematics, you might do a little better!!

This is so ridiculous that I want others see that you are a complete idiot with mathematical abilities!!

Your glass house is crumbling!!

 

You think this is flaming? If Magneto_1 has pretensions toward science, then it is just and proper to call him out on behaviour which will earn him an instant black flag if he were to do it in a research context.

Students can get expelled for plagiarism. Professors can be fired. Degrees can be revoked. Grants withdrawn, awards reclaimed, honours stripped, etc.

This is not a trifling matter.

 

Life tip: when attempting to present oneself as an authority in legal matters, do not confuse the notions of slander and libel in your opening statement.

Are you 12 years old? What a pathetic individual you must be.

I am delighted that you continue to frequent this forum, because with each post you make we and the public at large get to see a little more into the character of Robert Louis Kemp.

 

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!!

Now, do some physics!!

 

To the "Moderators" at large.

I keep reminding posters to do "physics". But none want to do any physics, why??

 

Where did I say that?

No, my university didn't require me to seek permission before submitting it to journals. I provided them with permission to keep it on their website and I must acknowledge the research was done while working there but I can publish it elsewhere without their permission. And the research belongs to me in the sense it was done by me, I am the author (or coauthor) and thus I can quote it without fear of plagiarism.

I retorted this. Someone allowing you to quote their work doesn't mean that you're allowed to not state it is someone else's work. In research if you quote anyone you should make it clear you are doing so and you should give references, even when the person/organisation allows people to freely quote them.

The issue isn't that you quoted someone it is that you didn't make it clear you were. Quoting isn't the problem, not admitting you're quoting is.

Clearly your understanding of how to present research is a little poor but then that's to be expected if you've been working at a degree mill which doesn't do research.

Didn't you just say we are extremely knowledgeable about this stuff? And it doesn't matter whether we are complete beginners or professors, if you don't say "I am quoting someone here" when you quote someone you're being dishonest. It's a cardinal sin in the research community, regardless of whether the person said you can quote them or not or the audience the work is for.

You complain about slander immediately after saying, without reason, that I don't own my research. I am the author of my research and thus I do not need to cite anyone or reference anything when quoting it, because I am the author. I can publish it where I wish and I indeed submitted some of my work to journals without speaking even to my supervisor. I have given the journals my work is published in exclusivity, all journals expect that, but I still own the research. My university cannot claim to be the author of my work, it can only claim that the research was done by someone who attended the university at the time of doing the research.

And I like how you continue to try to denigrate my work (along with the work of people like Cpt) when you have no work which even compares to it. Your new pal quantum_wave is sticking with you but only because you and he both receive similar criticisms from me as to the laughable nature of the work you've produced and the time you have wasted on it.

Speaking of slander etc, why don't you present some evidence that I've got all of these supposed sock puppets other than the fact more than one person disagrees with you. The moderators can check IPs, posting timings etc, I know they will find nothing because there is nothing to find. You want there to be a conspiracy because otherwise it just means even more people see through your nonsense.

Wow, you contradict yourself in less than a dozen words. So do I correct or not? You complained that I was trolling and Magneto is a 'class act', yet you now admit that I correct him, he has been wrong. If you accept he's been wrong on some things then you should be aware he continued to ignore those corrections. Is this the behaviour of a 'class act'? I tried playing nice and he didn't want to listen, just like you. Now you see a lot of yourself in him and he's received similar put downs for lack of anything resembling science and so you're trying to defend him. Trying being the operative word.

 

Slander is an American term. In America, you can be held "Libel" for "Slander"

Libel is an English/United Kingdom term.


Since, they both mean the same thing, as you were able to discover! Which makes you aware! So, please refrain from either "Slander" or "Libel"!!

 

I think you mean "liable". Any more gems?

 

Just as long as you get it!!

 

As amply demonstrated by rpenner, those defences crumble under the slightest investigation, giving that you've been caught plagiarising.

I'm beginning to think that you don't actually understand what plagiarism actually means. LMGTFY.

 

That only applies to "Novel" and "Static" work. And scientific facts fall under a different category.

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!!

Now, do some physics!!

 

Ahem.

 

You slightly garbled that if script and score for Carmen are in the public domain (as I reasonably expect is the case) then they are unprotected. An authorized recording of a performance of Carmen would immediately be vested with new copyright protection provided it was the least bit original.

Upon further research, I have concluded that the performance of an opera remains protected from the distribution of unauthorized recordings by ostensibly copyright-motivated international agreements and enabling acts of Congress. Copyright purists are not unanimously in support of the position that this is in fact copyright, even if it is part of US Code Title 17.

From http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html#unfixed

See also US Code Title 17, Chapter 11, § 1101 for the statute at issue.

Regardless, each Wikipedia revision of a page is independently fixated and retrievable. And while you laid out all the elements of a case for plagiarism against yourself, you really didn't address the issue directly or acknowledge the relevant standards.

I'll even volunteer for an extra day off just for me for asking the Moderators to weigh in. Come on, Mr. Kemp. You asked to get the moderators involved in this thread -- what specific judgment and action did you want them to take?