/sci/ - Science & Math

kys

>>9899377
SOURCE:
Negative frequency resonant radiation
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2689

ANOTHER SOURCE:
Soliton-induced relativistic-scattering and amplification
https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0256

fyi, "soliton-induced amplification" means, pretty much, "free energy"

>>9899447
kys

>>9899377
Get a life

>>9899377
get help

>>9899515
I have a life. I have a lot of professional successes too and recognition for them is what I'm trying to get.

Anyone want to tell me that I'm schizophrenic to believe 1.272=1.272?

>>9899525
I am trying to get help. No one is helping me in the way that I am trying to get helped.

Fuck off

>>9899399
>>9899485
>>9899515
>>9899525
>>9899546
Don't let these morons get you down bro. You will be recognized as one of the greats some day.

>>9899550
>schizophrenic that threatens to murder children
Nope

>>9899550
Yeah but in the meantime why not give me some money so I can live indoors and buy food like a human being instead of sleeping in the dirt or on the sidewalk and shoplifting all my meals because I don't have enough money to shop and pay rent?

There's this whole wide spectrum between "one of the greats" and "homeless bum." Just give me some fucking money so I can be in the middle until that day gets here.

>>9899377
>70% of the citations are to yourself
lmao you self-masturbatory shithead

>>9899559
Even if you don't believe that I'm God, what do you think of the Bible that constantly has God threatening to kill children for the sins of their ancestors. It's good right? Or do you think the God of Abraham is evil?

Sounds like the God of Abraham doesn't just want to kill the children, he wants to nuke the cities too. I sure do know that feel! That guy in the Bible is
>just
>like
>me

>>9899399
>>9899485
>>9899515
>>9899525
>>9899546
>>9899559
>>9899574


this is some extreme tryhard trolling going on here

but not gonna lie, it does seem strange why the author is citing only himself

>>9899599
its because he is literally insane and his papers are baffling nonsense

>>9899566
>Yeah but in the meantime why not give me some money so I can live indoors and buy food like a human being instead of sleeping in the dirt or on the sidewalk and shoplifting all my meals because I don't have enough money to shop and pay rent?
How about I give you "negative dollars" then call them real so you have the ability to spend them. The fact that you believe photons exist let alone a negative one is hilarious.

>>9899566
Nope, murderous schizophrenics don't deserve internet connections. :^)

>>9899616

Can you please tell me what part of his papers are insane?

Just saying its "insane" isn't exactly an argument.

>>9899633
Negative frequency resonant radiation
https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2689

>>9899638
You are stupid to think that my victory-mindedness, that which you call my murderousness, is symptomatic of schizophrenia.

>>9899527
>Anyone want to tell me that I'm schizophrenic to believe 1.272=1.272?
Yes, when those 1.272 have nothing to do with each other.

>>9899756
>Negative frequency resonant radiation
You recent "article" proves that you didn't understand their paper. You don't even know what a soliton is.

P.D. I'm still laughing at pic related.

what is your point with all of this?

>>9901344
To show that the spinor is a good object for describing the MCM and to show that the MCM Hamiltonian is well-suited to describing the increment of energy afforded to negative resonant photons.

See: >>9899447

>>9899534
Ok, in laymans terms what does this mean? this is a highly specialized field and these terms hold no meaning to us without a proper frame of reference to hold them against.

>>9899377
>unironically posting vixra articles
kill yourself

>>9902478
Your comment is too short for me to be sure that I know what you mean by "this" and "these terms."

>>9902481
expand on the original post you stupid fuck.

>>9901254
>P.D. I'm still laughing at pic related.
I guess you could put quaternion phase in there too, not just complex phase. Do you see how adding the i to the value listed in the table obviates the need to apply the Wick continuation?

>>9902487
I came up a with theory, the MCM, and I developed an energy function for it based on the principles of the theory. That is in the paper
>Time Arrow Spinors for the Modified Cosmological Model
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1807.0454
Right after I suggested negative time, they discovered negative resonant radiation. I have previously claim that this was an experimental confirmation of my theory back in 2012, and now I have computed an obvious energy shift with my quantized energy function, and one mode, the obvious one, is the same as the average energy shift in the experimental data.

Indeed, the discovery of time reversal symmetry violation in the old Babar data was another, independent confirmation of my theory in 2012. After I suggested to look for delay correlations in
>Derivation of the Fine Structure Constant
>http://www.vixra.org/abs/1208.0076
(pic related) the found them in
> Observation of Time Reversal Violation in the B0 Meson System
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5832
Furthermore, the spinor model I developed in this Time Arrow paper is like that case which allows spin-1 for the Higgs like particle. Spin-1 is another MCM prediction and if CERN says the particle has spin-1 then that will confirm my theory yet again, independently.

So it is weird that my theory has multiple experimental confirmations, not to mention the real existence of dark energy, also predicted by the MCM, and yet it is treated like some nut job quackery because my personality lends itself to that kind of mischaracterization. What does my personality, mischaracterized or not, have to do with it? In any case, the mischaracterization has no impact on me, my result, or my personality.

>>9902524
>Negative resonant radiation
They discovered this in 2012...

>>9902534
yes that's right. Their paper got to arXiv two months after I suggested the negative time mode. My belief is that they somehow got my 2011 paper and carried these experiments as a way to check on whether or not the negative time mode is physical. They confirmed that it is physical. Six years ago. Dark energy was confirmed physical 20 years ago, and time reversal symmetry violation was also confirmed six years ago, via the idea from another paper. And CERN is being unethical regarding the case for spin-1 in the particle they found in 2012.

>>9902551
So what are the implications of these findings?

>>9902553
The two-fold findings are thus:
(1) The MCM represents a robust, predictive physical theory
(2) The government has collaborated with non-government entities to deprive me of my accolades.

>>9902558
How do you know the non-government entities took your findings? they very well could have uncovered them on their own.

>>9902558
Dude. Get meds. My brother is schizophrenic. You sound like him. He talks too much about religion and shit.
You're not the only one who thinks " i'm god", there are thousands like you. He's on meds since 2 years ago and he's perfectly fine now. He's only delusional when he never takes meds.
You will see things clearer once you start doing some therapy mate

But remember, you're mentally ILL and no, you're not god. This all makes sense in your head, but the others can see how delusional you are.
What about your parents? do you have any related who can help you, or you just refuse to get helped? I know you will say something like "I have no parents Im god" or that you're the son of Hitler like my brother thought

>>9902551
https://youtu.be/c0rAlXvJMsc
4:05
Watch it some minutes at least

>>9903288
I didn't allege that they took my findings, I alleged that they colluded with government to deprive me of my due accolades.

>>9903339
I am God. It's my name. It's a fact.

>>9903387
Have you ever met another schizophrenic that also claims to be god? How do you rectify that you both claim to be god?

>>9903387
Yeah he would say something like this.
Btw when did you start feeling the symptoms?
Did it start when you were a teenage or in your 20's?

>>9902506
>I guess you could put quaternion phase in there too, not just complex phase. Do you see how adding the i to the value listed in the table obviates the need to apply the Wick continuation?
You are just dense as osmium. To go from [math] G^2=\pi [/math] to [math] G^* G=\pi [/math] you have used [math] G=G^* [/math] but, for some reason (well, because you are dumb), at the end you allow the solutions [math] G=-G^* [/math] (you are saying that an integral that is real can have purely complex solutions, which any person can see it's false). Obviously, this also proves that you don't understand how Wick rotation works. And that's why you are not allowed to publish in arXiv.

>>9902524
>So it is weird that my theory has multiple experimental confirmations
Those are not experimental confirmations, it's only your deluded mind. Also, CERN says that the Higgs boson is most probably a spin 0 particle.

>>9902534
>>>9902524
>>Negative resonant radiation
>They discovered this in 2012...
That's the only truth he is saying. The paper basically say: "when considering solitons in optics, usually you get a solution with positive frequency and other with negative frequency. People disregard the second one but we have shown that you have to take it into account". That's the real paper on arXiv, the rest is the insanity of this guy.

>>9902551
>they somehow got my 2011 paper and carried these experiments
Your papers are trash and https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2689 has nothing to do with your schizo ideas.

>>9903339
>My brother is schizophrenic. You sound like him.
That's because he has been proven schizo by experts.

>>9903717
>an integral that is real
Where did I say it was real? All I said was that it was the one we use in QFT, and that generally isn't real.

>>9904650
Have you ever met another schizophrenic that also claims to be god? How do you rectify that you both claim to be god?

>>9904650
Why havent you freed yourself yet?
Shed your restricting skin.
Kill yourself and escape this confinement.

>>9904674
I haven't, it hasn't been an issue for me.

>>9904721
It's probably because I still don't hate my enemies enough

>>9904650
>Where did I say it was real?
Equation 2 in pic >>9901254, where you say that [math] (\int{e^{-x^2} dx})^*=\int{e^{-x^2} dx} [/math], equation that you deliberately ignore later. This imply that the integral is real, you dense schizo.

>>9904755
Stop using my name you nazi childfucker, you're not the real Tooker, you're an imposter send by the CIA to discredit my MCM theory.

>>9899527
>I have a lot of professional successes too
Bullshit. Like what?

What degree or employment within STEM have you achieved?

Wake up and listen to >>9899525.

>recognition for them is what I'm trying to get.
Then study a degree, apply for postgrad, finish your PhD and then start submitting your ideas to journals, by then you will see why most of them are wrong.

>>9899664
>>9899616
>>9902480

Start with the fact that they are [math]not[/math] papers. They are unpublished (have not been published in a peer reviewed journal). Therefore the correct technical term for them is "manuscripts".

Now consider the fact that most of his "work" consists of notation fuckering around with a simple simplistic manipulations of models and equations he barely understands beyond their most elementary definitions, unironic use of fucking wikipedia as a citation and largely irrelevant soliloquies on the supposed theological implications of his work mixed into his larger manuscripts.


Now, sane posters reading this will rightfully think "troll".

The issue is that he has written a shit ton of pages that he posted on that preprint site.

This man is not sane, and he needs to seek help.

You are doing him an extreme disservice by encouraging his delusion. So please stop being assholes
>>9899550
>>9899599
>>9899664
>>9902478
>>9902534
>>9902553
>>9903288

and others.

Could these negative photons be the same thing as the anti-photons Rugero Santilli discovered a few years ago?

>>9905818
>This imply that the integral is real, you dense schizo.
First off, the context of QFT given in the abstract does not lend itself to a context of purely real integrals, so it was not good reading skills for you to see this implication. Second, the implication of eq (2) was that there can be an imaginary measure dx. Third, while not implied, Wick rotation is the method by which a real variable in the exponent, such as in eq (2) is replaced by an imaginary one so, again, there is not context in this paper suggesting a purely real constraint.

>>9906251
>Like what?
Like those contained in my body of work
http://www.vixra.org/author/jonathan_w_tooker

>>9906251
I am too poor to be able to afford to go to college and I have too much integrity to send my pearls to the peer-review pigs.

>>9906267
According to the technical definition of "published" and the technical definition of "papers," they are published papers.

>>9906271
Maybe. Do have a pdf link? I would like to have a look.

>>9906314
there are lots of pdfs available at his website: http://rexresearch.com/santillilens/santillilens.html

>>9906267
>his "work" consists of notation fuckering around with a simple simplistic manipulations

>>9906314
>According to the technical definition of "published" and the technical definition of "papers," they are published papers.
No, according to the dictionary definition of published, they are published. By the technical definition, they are not published, because the technical definition requires them to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

>>9906335
Well, if you know one that seems like its relevant please let me know.

>>9906338
That's wrong and stupid. I think you're referring to the meaning of the word in the niche professional jargon, not the technical definition which is the one that appears in the dictionary.

>>9906314
>it was not good reading skills for you to see this implication.
I care about the math done right. And in QFT the math is done right even when complex integrals are used.

>Second, the implication of eq (2) was that there can be an imaginary measure dx.
That's a made up bullshit to justify yourself after been exposed. If the measure dx was purely imaginary then [math](dx)^*=-dx[/math] and [math]G^*=-G[/math].

>Wick rotation is the method by which a real variable in the exponent, such as in eq (2) is replaced by an imaginary one
You don't even know how Wick rotation works or why the factor of i disappears from the exponent.

>there is not context in this paper suggesting a purely real constraint
Yes, right where you write [math](\int{e^{-x^2} dx})^*=\int{e^{-x^2} dx}[/math]. That is constraining [math]G[/math] to be real, you dense dumbass.

>>9906344
Dictionary =/= technical. The niche professional jargon IS the technical definition.

Everyone has a dictionary on their shelves. That's general, not technical.

>>9906347
>I care about the math done right.
Then why do you choose to see an implication that it is real when there is clearly none? Math done right would entail reading what the paper says and then criticizing on its content, not the imaginary content that you imagined while you were reading it.

>That's a made up bullshit to justify yourself
no that's the main result of the paper, pic related.

>That is constraining [math]G[/math] to be real
No it isn't. It demonstrates how there can be i's hidden in the integral which don't get grabbed by the superficial application of the conjugation rule. Equation (2) demonstrates the superficial application of the conjugation rule, nothing more... lso pic related

>>9906314
>Like those contained in my body of work
By definition the body of your work is amateur not professional.

Unless someone paid you to upload maniscripts to a preprint site?

>I am too poor to be able to afford to go to college and
There are many scholarships. Rewrite your high-school exams and apply to them so you can can study and live on a scholarship.

>I have too much integrity to send my pearls to the peer-review pigs.
Why? Are you afraid they're going to steal your work? Because peer-review shields you from this happening while uploading to a public site does not.

>According to the technical definition of "published" and the technical definition of "papers," they are published papers.

No, they are "manuscripts" that are "uploaded" to a preprint site which by definition is not a distributed publication, but a public website for preprint manuscripts.


For further evidence see the info page on the site you are uploading to:
>http://vixra.org/info
>Acceptance into viXra does not constitute a publication of research in the academic sense since no quality review takes place. Authors retain their copyright and may submit the same work to a journal and other repositories. Any submission can also be updated or withdrawn by the author(s) at any time.
>Acceptance into viXra does not constitute a publication of research
>does not constitute a publication of research


Please listen, we really are trying to help you.

>>9906357
In the semantics of my personal dialect, the general definition is the conversational one and the technical one is the exact definition which appears in the dictionary.

I see you are more interested in the papers' publication status that their content.

>>9906337
Stokes generalizes a theorem to higher dimensions and non-euclidean surfaces.

Therefore it works with new mathematical objects compared to say Green's theorem etc.

What OP is doing is using simple calculus manipulations on the same objects and then confused about what his own calculations represent as this Anon pointed out >>9905818

>>9906375
>I see you are more interested in the papers' publication status that their content.
because i don't have the physics training to evaluate their content, so the only thing i'm qualified on is to correct you on your mistaken assumptions.

and fine, if that's your personal dialect, whatever. just know that no one else you will ever talk to will agree with your definitions. insisting on your own definitions when you know they'll be misinterpreted by everyone is bordering on willful dishonesty

>>9906373
I have never claimed to be a professional scientists or mathematician. You are totally right and I agree.

>not a distributed publication
That's like me saying, "Hey look at that elephant!!!," and then you saying, "That's not a pink elephant in a tiny car you fucking moron!"

>>9906380
>insisting on your own definitions
That's you though. I'm insisting on the dictionary definitions.

>>9906394
you're insisting on definitions that are ill-suited to the context. you're talking about science and math. use the science and math definitions or you're going to cause confusion.

>>9906391
A publication of research is a paper that has been accepted for publication in an accredited journal after the peer review process was completed on the manuscript.

"A publication" is a shorthand for this used by professional academics. It is known that most academics are paid per publication in the sense above when they are published in an accredited journal.

An example that is not publication is a blog post or a newspaper letter. Academics do not gain money from these works and there they are not the same as the sense above.

That is why the website you are uploading to says "Acceptance into viXra does not constitute a publication of research".


Your interpretation of a publication is so wrong that I can give you another analogy of how badly this miscommunication is
>"Hey, look I rotated a wick. I can do quantum mechanics!"
>"That's a candle wick Anon, that's not what a Wick rotation means in the context of of quantum mechanics."
>"Of course it does, google the definition of a Wick."

>>9906379
>What OP is doing is using simple calculus manipulations on the same objects and then confused about what his own calculations represent
Indeed, thank you.

>>9906371
>Then why do you choose to see an implication that it is real when there is clearly none?
Because you have your head so far up your ass you can't see evident things.

>Math done right would entail reading what the paper says and then criticizing on its content
I read it and had a good laugh at you incompetence.

>no that's the main result of the paper, pic related.
That's directly bullshit stuffed with horseshit.
1. Your integral didn't involved boundary terms, you never used integration by parts at any moment. Even worse, you didn't even put limits on your integral (although the results already tell us that they are plus and minus infinity).
2. You are getting extra factors of i only because of your incompetence.
3. You don't even know how Wick rotation works nor its purpose.

>>That is constraining G to be real
>No it isn't.
You wrote [math](\int{e^{-x^2} dx})^*=\int{e^{-x^2} dx}[/math], THAT IMPOSES THE INTEGRAL TO BE REAL. If I write [math] z=a+ib [/math] with a and b real, then [math]z^*=z \Rightarrow(a-ib)=(a+ib)\Rightarrow b=0 [/math]. The same happens if you substitute z by G, you dense schizo.

>It demonstrates how there can be i's hidden in the integral which don't get grabbed by the superficial application of the conjugation rule.
No, the i is hidden in your incompetence. If [math]G[/math] was purely imaginary you should have written [math]G^2=-G^*G[/math].

>Equation (2) demonstrates the superficial application of the conjugation rule, nothing more...
Equation (4) demonstrates YOUR superficial knowledge of how to solve simple algebraic equations.

>>9906371
Take x^2+y^2 where both x and y are real. The result of x^2+y^2 is real. There may be "hidden i", for example it could be written as (x+iy) (x-iy), but because the fact that ( (x+iy) (x-iy) )* = (x+iy) (x-iy) shows that the result will be real, even with possible "hidden i"

>>9906395
>the context.
The context is that you are criticizing my work for not going through peer review. My peers have reviewed my work and decided that it is good but they are in an eccentric, perverse, unanimous conspiracy of silence in that regard. However, in some sense of the niche jargon my work has not gone through peer review, and is not peer reviewed, and it did not pass peer review, and it failed to pass peer review. This isn't because my work lacks scientific merit or that it doesn't contain a "new" contribution. The failure to pass peer review isn't because I didn't send my work to peer-reviewed journals and arXiv, it's that no journal would extend to me peer-review save one. All of the others said journals of the APS, AIP, and IOP said my manuscipt was inappropriate. Since they are the ones who say what is appropriate for them, who am I to disagree? However, I did request peer review many times from many journals and they did all refuse to extend it save one.

I BTFOed the IJTPD reviewer's criticism which was basically that I didn't know what some other guys had done. Therefore, my work would be denied on my not having read the paper rather than a lack of original scientific work. What does their paper have to do with my own new idea that I was writing about? Not much, except in the opinion of the reviewer, who thought it meant the whole thing was garbage.

When you, you detractors, call attention to the peer review, its like you're saying that it's more important that I didn't read about the other guys' ideas than that I had my own, original idea. This is what you are really getting at when you emphasize the peer-review status. You say, "It failed to pass peer-review," and you let it be implied that the reason is because my work was substandard. It is only substandard with respect to the gay publishing standards of the journals of the professional physics societies, not with respect to the advancement of science and mathematics.

>>9906459
>The context is that you are criticizing my work for not going through peer review.
i havent said a single thing about your work, positive or negative. my only contribution to this thread has been to discuss your improper use of the word "published".

>>9906459
What happens with that one that decided to peer-review your work? They give you feedback and a reason for rejection if that is their decision. From there you may make revisions and a rebuttle as to why it should be accepted and is important to publish in their journal.

>>9906462
but you are you using "to publish' as a synonym for "to pass peer review"

>>9906478
I did epically rebut the reviewer's criticism. He emailed, "There can't be a negative time mode because of the ADM positive definiteness theorem." I embarrassed the reviewer by totally proving him wrong in about three sentences, about his scientific point, not the main thrust of his email which was that I didn't know my ass from a hole in the work of Arnowitt, Deser, and Misner. I said, "ADM based on symmetric universe topology. CMB data shows asymmetric universe. Therefore, due to equation XXX in ADM paper, minus sign is allowed." I received no response and my manuscript was removed from the online submission system shortly thereafter.

>>9906488
>but you are you using "to publish' as a synonym for "to pass peer review"
because that's the only meaning that matters when you're discussing scientific or mathematic topics

if your work hasnt passed peer review, i'm not trying to make a judgement on that. i've seen good papers get rejected for stupid reasons and i've seen bad papers get rightfully rejected. i don't know the science so i can't rightfully judge your work

but what i can say is that your usage of "published" is wrong

>>9899377
>A few years ago, they discovered
NOTHING
imagination and bullshit combined with unverifiable scribbles on paper is not discovery of anything but grant money or face prepping

>>9906494
>discussing scientific or mathematic topics
Sometimes the final step of the scientific method is written "Communicate results." That conforms to the dictionary definition of publication "to make known" but it does not agree with your definition "to pass peer review" because the latter necessarily entails (1) communicating results and (2) passing peer review.

>>9906505
"Communicate results" in scientific contexts has a near-universal connotation that it's done via a peer-reviewed journal. No one will pay attention to your work without peer review, so no communication of results can take place.

>>9906510
I'm not in charge of what other people pay attention to.

>>9906530
Then you shouldn't call your work published.

>>9906505
Nobody is going through vixra reading papers to supplement and expand their knowledge. Vixra is not a publication in the sense of "to make known" your results. At least arXiv would satisfy the "to make known" but nobody will take your work seriously if it's not going to be accepted by an accredited scientifically accepted journal. Do the work to figure out which journals are in the field for which your work is relevant. Don't assume the reader (even the peer-reviewers) will make the connections. Clearly explain why from step to step everything matches up. Often times good papers are rejected because they assume too much comprehension of the field and they think it's obvious why their results are unique and constraints from previous work don't apply to their work. From there you should be able to at least get it into review. It would help if you read several other papers published by that journal to see the standard they are looking for. Make your paper look and shine like those others. It's easy to tell crack pots from real science with how they present work and how they sound. Mimic the writing styles and don't leave gaps in your reasoning, even seemingly obvious ones, and you should be able to get into the review process. If they still give you the "not acceptable" answer, inquire why specifically and further ask what journal would it be appropriate in. They should give an answer to the first, probably not the second, but worth showing that you care about the feedback and to try to improve to meet their "gay publishing standards of the journals of the professional physics societies"

>>9906427
>>9906435
I'm assuming by the lack of response, you understand the error you made, agree with these, and are fixing your results accordingly, yes?

>>9906533
I generally don't refer to its publication status, usually only in response to issues of peer review criticism. Why do you focus on the status but not the result?

>>9906588
Because, as I said, I'm not qualified to comment on the result. The only reason I'm in this thread is to point out your misuse of the term published.

>>9906537
>Vixra is not a publication in the sense of "to make known" your results
That is true. I should have used the definition "to make available for review."

>try to improve to meet their "gay publishing standards
I am going quite far out of my way to make sure I never do that. I would rather be the prototypical case which proves conclusively what was already proven: peer-review is something from the HR department, not from the Science department.

>>9906588
Thousands of papers, can't read them all to determine for myself if good physics. If it becomes highly cited then is worth a read or if it's in a peer-reviewed journal and seems relevant to my work then it's already passed a filter so may be worth the read

>>9906598
That hardly follows because I have only responded after you raised the publication status

>>9906601
"to make reviewed" doesn't help since you are comparing about peer-reviewed and same argument that nobody goes on vixra or arXiv to review work.

If you're not going to meet their standards then you'll never be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You say you're fine with that, then complain that nobody gives a shit about your work. There are standards for a reason and people use peer-reviewed as a filter to determine what may be useful to read and implement in their work.

>>9906614
Sorry, meant "to make available for review"

>>9906606
it follows because my first post in the thread was: >>9906338

>>9906614
>You say you're fine with that
No. Maybe I've said something rhetorically which was taken out of context, but I am not fine with it. This is the source of so much of my protest: the physicists of the professional societies did not want to concede that I am better at physics than they are, and then criticize me for not having what I would have had if arXiv accepted my papers and if I hadn't been fired from Georgia Tech right when my student loans ran out. It's a circular argument of theirs, the proceeding of their societies mean little compared to the self-evidence of my result. Instead, they have refused to correct themselves and go on in their egotism.

>>9906267
>They are unpublished
this other post precedes mine

>>9906644
how do you get fired from a university

you're the one paying to be there, if your loans ran out they have no obligation to keep you around

>>9906644
Why is it so difficult to meet their standards? What's so "gay" about their standards? Was this work you had done while you were at Georgia Tech? If so, then want it with a professor? If it wasn't, why not? If so, wouldn't the professor still be interested in publishing work even if it's with someone who isn't still at the university?

Honestly, the whole thing just sounds like "I'm smarter than they are but I can't show them that so the scientific community is stupid". If this is honestly your opinion, we don't want your type in academia because you jump to wrong conclusions and refuse to learn and adapt and grow. If you cannot work with someone who is in the field, even if it is purely so they can get you past the publishing standards, why do you even complain? Why did it matter to be recognized by a community that you think is stupid and below you?

>>9906687
because it proves his conspiracy mindset

>>9906693
Yeah just trying to challenge that in hopes of either 1. changing his mind about it or bringing him one step closer to changing (doubtful) or 2. showing why not to post here and hoping he doesn't come back

>>9906687
>Why is it so difficult to meet their standards
Regardless of the difficulty, it's no longer something I wish to do.

> What's so "gay" about their standards?
They are defined such that what I write is not publishable

>Was this work you had done while you were at Georgia Tech?
Some of the early stuff

> If so, then want it with a professor?
No, I didn't want to work on anything any of the professors were working on, I wanted someone to pay me to work on my own ideas.

> If you cannot work with someone who is in the field
I am someone who is in the field, the best person in it. Why can they not work with me?

>>9906740
I'm not saying you have to work on their ideas, but to work WITH someone, not FOR someone. Yes you can still work on your ideas, that's the point. Go work with someone else in the field who is good at getting things past publication standards (as they are not defined by "if you wrote it then we cannot publish it"). The only path if you refuse to do it is it to get someone else to do it for you.

>>9906644
So you were an undergrad or a grad student on student loans?

>>9906753
The point was that I did not have that option, my option was to pick a professor which would choose a problem to pay me to work on. There was a strict funding requirement that the funds be used for the grant they were given under. However, I also had a fellowship based on academic excellence in my undergrad, and that funded my scholarly excellence in graduate school until I was kicked out before finishing an experimental PhD in materials science. After I got kicked out of the school of physics a few years before I got kicked out of GT, I did let a professor choose a problem for me. I had already solved dark energy, and I thought I would head back to physics from material science at any moment.

>>9906764

>>9906781
>There was a strict funding requirement that the funds be used for the grant they were given under.
yeah that's how all graduate funding works

how exactly did you solve dark energy?

>>9906788
>how exactly did you solve dark energy?
I proposed an energy function of a timelike domain
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0022

>>9906644
>did not want to concede that I am better at physics than they areStop.
There's no such thing as "Person X is better than person Y at science".

Definitely not in the peer review world.

Have you noticed that people always attack your ideas and not you.

Despite me having certain personal perceptions toward you, I'm proud that many people have responded sincerely to you.

No if you would stop insulting other people that would be nice.

You can fume about this all you want, but at the end of the day none of what you're doing is worth anything if you can't communicate it to anyone.

Now many of your ideas are just outright irrelevant. However, I would advise you to submit some of your papers to an appropriate journal in the field. I have no doubt it will be rejected, but they will point you in the right direction. Maybe after they will point you in the right direction you will produce something productive that could help you get back into university with a scholarship. Then one day you can work on new ideas.

And again, this is not about credit or who is right or wrong. If you think that way you shouldn't be writing in science for free anyway,

>>9906781
If you care about funding, write grants. Otherwise, work with them on a project and do yours on the side, show them your work, and get them to back you for publication and write for you to get your manuscript up to publication standards. If nobody at your university likes your work, email professors at other universities until you find someone interested. You don't always have to follow standard approach, but it will be more work if you don't.

>>9906785
Hope to you have $170,000 in loans if you also had academic fellowship?

>>9906740
>I wanted someone to pay me to work on my own ideas.
No offence, but you weren't even good enough to get scholarships, so why should anyone trust you enough to work on your own ideas.

Getting paid to work on your own ideas is an extremely rare reward from society that most professors do not even receive.

You are out in the cold only because of your arrogance, I hope you see this one day. You could've gotten anything you wanted if you let go of your ego.

>>9906811
I was able to demonstrate a lot of student need.

>>9906818
>weren't even good enough to get scholarships
I had the most prestigious fellowship that my university offers to its PhD candidates.

>You are out in the cold only because of your arrogance
I should be in the warmth because of my result which is supposed to be the most important part. Detractors say, "Both are important: the result and the conforming to the publishing standards," but I say, "What is most important?" As it stands, detractors' actions say that the latter is most important, and they are wrong, and I will have my concession on this point.

>>9906644
>Maybe I've said something rhetorically which was taken out of context
Like when you threaten children?

>the physicists of the professional societies did not want to concede that I am better at physics than they are
Because you have proven time and time again that you are not, the problem with the "i" in the gaussian integral is just the tip of the iceberg.


>if arXiv accepted my papers and if I hadn't been fired from Georgia Tech
Those things happened for some reason. And that reason IS NOT a global conspiracy against you.

>>9906740
>They are defined such that what I write is not publishable
Because what you write is plainly wrong.
>>9906781
>I had already solved dark energy, and I thought I would head back to physics from material science at any moment.
No, you are not. Even worse, in http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0022 you made NO numerical prediction that could be checked

>>9906874
I'm done with this conversation, end of day you work towards what you want. If you cannot pass the standards of publication you don't deserve to be recognized and you won't be. It's really not that hard to get past peer-review entry standards, especially on arXiv. Since you cannot, you should reevaluate your work and conclusions since literally nobody will publish your results if they even give it a quick glance (unlike vixra)

>>9906885
>standards of publication
standards of publishers, ftfy

>>9906874
You have a masters degree? Are you employed somewhere? Why do you say you have no money for school?

Your LinkedIn profile says you're a "data analysts".

>I should
"Would've, could've, should've" arguments won't improve your circumstances.

>>9906874
>As it stands, detractors' actions say that the latter is most important, and they are wrong, and I will have my concession on this point.
No.

Suppose that someone flies to Mars and cuts all communication with Earth.

He discovers a unified universal law and solves most of the mysteries of Physics.

But he never sends any signal back, he dies and all his hard drives decay.

No one ever knows what he did.

Moral: Communication is [math]the[/math] most important aspect of your work. Without it. None of your results matter.


Everything you say past to the vein of "I don't care about humanity" or some other edgy shit is irrelevant. You are communicating with us. You can stop any time and go dig your hole. But no is going to listen to you if you don't follow our due processes and communicate clearly and effectively through the peer review system. The only reason you don't do this is because you know that you're ideas aren't unique or worth much. You only care about ego. Good night.

>>9906911
>You have a masters degree?
yes

>Are you employed somewhere?
no

>Why do you say you have no money for school?
Because I don't

>>9906921
If you want to pretend like I didn't send a signal back then that is indicative of your capacity for free will

>>9906922
But how did you get $180000 in loans? You don't be to pay back grants or scholarships? Also, if you're a grad student and not covered by a TA or RA, they don't really want you because you're not worth it. I sorry you're figuring this out the hard way.

>>9906931
Your signal was nothing more than shit posting and they promptly ignored it because we shouldn't feed the trolls. The more voluntary information you provide, the less anyone believes your story, in particular that you're worth anyone's time

>>9906922
>no
Well start by fixing your LinkedIn description.

Don't use words like superior and outstanding, it's presumptuous. Just describe your qualifications and target career in as few words as possible.

List your GPA next to your degree. Add your scholarships under a seperate rewards and honours section.

Fix your CV accordingly.

Find a job in big data, you can pay off your debt in 2-5 years then get back to university. If you don't care about publishing then at least you can be communicating with professionals regularly to develop your skills in the career you really want.

This:
?https://www.physics.gatech.edu/user/jonathan-tooker

Is a deadlink, I don't know if you ever really attended Gatech or if that's a part of your schizophrenia, but in any case you should make sure to have your academic records and degrees publicly available.

>>9906885
>peer-review entry standards, especially on
>arXiv.

There is no such thing as peer-review on a fucking pre-print site.

It's a site that you UPLOAD preprints. You do this by clicking a few buttons and it's there instantly. All you need to do is be an established researcher (ie. have someone vouch for you). After that you can upload as much bullshit as you want and no one cares.

There's no fucking peer review. No one looks at it. You upload it there so people can look at your work while it is being peer reviewed in a real journal and so people can get a free copy after acceptance.

People like you are the reason OP is going to stay in his delusions. You might be normal bloke, a undergrad/postgrad even, but you clearly haven't published yet. So don't post this kind of shit.

>>9906956
He was claiming they took his manuscript down so that's why I said it that way. Check my other statement where I further said why neither vixra or arXiv are considered publications regaled of which definition he chose from the dictionary.

People like you are the reason he is going to stay in his delusions of the world conspiring against him instead of having a conversation just placing blame from a misinterpretion of meaning.

>>9899447
These are just theoretical models, not real experiments.
> "soliton-induced amplification" means, pretty much, "free energy"
You're retarded.

>>9907057
Oh wait, one of them is a real experiment, it's just shit.

>>9907063
how so?

schizospam

>>9909925
>>9907063
That's a good question. Pic related, notice the non-standard "direct inquiries to" notation which is there because this is obviously a major thing but only if you are technically literate. "Soliton-induced amplification" means "free energy."
> Soliton-induced relativistic-scattering and amplification
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1211.0256

>>9899377
Free energy has been achieved long ago. Don't be another who gets "Suicided".

>>9907063
>>9909925
>>9910261
https://books.google.com/books?id=_JpYDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=soliton+induced+amplification+rubino&source=bl&ots=PAVyVqsqVj&sig=m7xzuDKCpz318JWiRlwU1dOMgWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9_J-C1c3cAhVs5oMKHZi_ANwQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=soliton%20induced%20amplification%20rubino&f=false

>>9910261
oops, pic

>>9910265
Why am homeless then if I have stimulated so much wealth creation?

>>9910278
>Why am homeless then if I have stimulated so much wealth creation?
Because you have stimulated shit. Those papers have nothing to do with your garbage. And you would know that if you read them.

>>9910278
Literally what wealth have you created?
>inb4 hurr free energy or some shit
If it's that easy, then make free energy and become the richest person ever to walk the planet. But you can't, and won't, because deep down you know your manuscripts are a bunch of made-up bullshit.

>>9910278
Well it's not just getting your theories in. It's actually getting on the go and testing it out. Like making the prototypes to emulate the concept.
>Thonk and doo not thonk or do.

>>9910448
That's not what it is either. It's breaking the conspiracy of silence of the other scientists.

>>9910914
>It's breaking the conspiracy of silence of the other scientists.
"It's not because my papers are bullshit, it's because there is giant conspiracy against me and everybody is in it".

>>9910914
Have you considered the fact that maybe you really do have schizophrenia, rather than all 7 billion other people on planet earth being part of some paid conspiracy to tell you that you have schizophrenia?

>>9910914
You're right, anon. Myself along with 7 billion have been watching you. See you tonight. We'll take a look at those papers of yours.

>>9902524
>>9902558
>>9906459
>>9906740

Hey, check this out: 'Building A Universe Competition' #BAUniC at baunic.blogspot.com and all over minds.com with that hashtag. Openminded research into the formula of the universe.

Also in this thread: >>9911368

Some are in much favour of strictness of rules. A.I. will eat them. : P

>>9901254
>real numbers are imaginary numbers when I need them to be
lmao, I wish this crank pseud would khs already

>>9910950
I didn't say everyone was in it.

>>9911033
Yes, I checked the symptoms just yesterday when someone said that smoking weed was a symptom of schizophrenia (it's not.) I don't have many of the symptoms. The ones I do have, like letting my hygiene go and losing interest in things, have more to do with my homelessness and indigence than some terrible disease that I have. I don't think many doctors say, "Oh you smoke weed and have lost interest in things? You must be schizophrenic." The truth about the schizophrenia rumor which is about me is that my mother was (is) trying to steal my inheritance, and she is a psychiatric nurse, and she organized a falsehood that she felt comfortable with.

The main symptom of schizophrenia is the delusions. It's very easy for me to tell the difference between facts in the exterior world and my own imagination, or my own speculations about what may or may not be factual, but schizophrenics are unable to make these distinctions. I am absolutely not delusional, nor do I hallucinate. I am definitely not schizophrenic. If you think I am, you should compile a list of the symptoms of schizophrenia you think I have and I will take a look. FYI, threatening to kill people is not on the list of any symptoms of schizophrenia. It is, however, on this list of things that the many of the greatest men in history had in common: victory through violence.

>>9912282
In fact, regarding this "easily disproven" caveat, it was a "delusion" of my doctor to claim that my theory was wrong. She said I was schizophrenic because I had that "delusion" of having made a discovery, which I offered to demonstrate for her and she declined instead preferring to categorically reject the possibility of my idea's validity. She said I was paranoid because I though the government had something to do with my problems finding an accolade.

So... I can say that my doctor's delusion that that I was delusional is easily disproven, but she refused to even have a glance at the evidence, much less to give it full consideration. Maybe if she is she is too stupid to understand my theory, then she say, "I can't understand that," instead of, "You are delusional if you don't think that wrong even though I have no tools to determine if it is right or wrong." However, the problem with arguing "easy disproval" to someone is that they probably have denialism in addition to their delusions. This is a big problem among the idiot group!

Also, it is characteristic of my clear-mindedness that I accuse other people of having specific symptoms which are evident, but I do not diagnose them with a disease based on that symptom. Only a retard would think he could do a medical diagnosis over 4chan comments. If someone holds an easily disproven belief then it is correct to identify the delusional behavior, but if someone threatens to kill someone and I say they are schizophrenic, that is totally stupid because that is not even a symptom of schizophrenia while schizophrenics do affirmatively have many of the symptoms, particularly delusions and hallucinations. Also, inability to make clear or coherent statements is big problem for schizo, and I am quite cogent, lucid, and logical in my rhetoric.

>>9912282
>I am absolutely not delusional
you really are though. that's part of delusions, you dont recognize them as such. the conspiracy you think science has against your work doesn't exist

>>9912343
Indeed, the conspiracy is not against a single individual. It is like that for all who have controversial ideas. It is also the pyramid of paper proofs to belief, rather than the proper openminded thinking.

>>9912282
You have sociopathy, delusions, paranoia, and hallucinations. You were just claiming to have a metal implant up your ass which is absurd. I dare you to go get an X-ray and show us the implant.
>inb4 it's made of magic material that's invisible on X-rays

>>9912359
Open-minded thinking is not reaching a logical contradiction and then proceeding to further nonsense, without recognizing the contradiction. Which this particular crank is repeatedly guilty of.

>>9912366
To be able to think in terms of resonating radiation requires a high quality crank. I hope the contradictions gets solved and work proceeds towards the formula of the universe.

>>9912282
>>9912362
Oh, also don't forget extreme narcissim. That one goes without saying.

>>9912343
What is one delusion I have? Remember that delusions are not mistaken beliefs, delusions are beliefs which are easily proven wrong.

>>9912362
What is one delusion or hallucination that I have? I am paranoid, that's true, but my paranoia is not pathological. I'm not sure exactly what the features of sociopath are, but schizophrenia isn't one of them.

>claiming to have a metal implant up your ass which is absurd
the one I could feel with my finger is gone now, and I no longer experience electrical shocks in that shallow part of my anus.

>>9912400
>extreme narcissim.
"Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes."
I'm trying to avoid homeless out of vanity then? If it wasn't for my egotism, then I would be happy to live in a dumpster? It's pride that I have in my work, and I'm spamming it because I want to get a dollar for it.

>>9912655
The Riemann Hypothesis can help you, do you know what a schizophrenic number is?
pic related will help you discover a unified field theory, the answer will have a schizophrenic number.

I already know the answer to the problem and I'm sure if we worked together we could solve all mathematical problems with the same equation.

>>9912310
>it was a "delusion" of my doctor to claim that my theory was wrong.
It is a delusion of you to claim that your "theory" is right. It is easy to disprove the extra i in the gaussian integral when you do things properly (and don't forget equations when it suit you).

>>9912655
>What is one delusion I have?
The i in the gaussian integral, the limits at infinity of sine and cosine....

>hallucination that I have?
That you are a good physicist. And pic related, that is the best one.

>"Narcissism is the pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration of one's own attributes."
Because adding in your paper: "DEMANDS This writer’s detractors must acknowledge that his research program is the best research program, and, more generally, that he is the best." it's not pursuit of gratification from vanity or egotistic admiration, is it?

>>9912893
It was your mistaken belief, not a delusion, to think you could bring this bullshit to me and still have people in your family survive. If I'm your relative maybe you'll have one survive, but your mistaken beliefs about survivability are quite mistaken... as is your opinion of my superb result

>>9912893
>when you do things properly
You mean, "If you redefine things so that I am right and you are wrong..."

You are very stupid to attempt to frame a paper about QFT as a pure exercise in real analysis. So stupid, wow.

>>9912655
>delusions are beliefs which are easily proven wrong.
the belief that science has a conspiracy against your work

>>9913512
I don't have that belief: it's a conspiracy of government and non-government agents.

>>9912655
>the one I could feel with my finger is gone now, and I no longer experience electrical shocks in that shallow part of my anus.
Because it never was there you fucking insane schizophrenic. It was a *HALLUCINATION*.

>>9913518
that is also a delusion. no such conspiracy exists

>>9913519
>It was a *HALLUCINATION*.
how can you tell?

>>9913521
>no such conspiracy exists
How can you tell?

>>9913524
because if your work had any merit, scientists would spread it regardless of what the government says

>>9913522
How was it magically inserted and removed in the course of 24 hours without any wounds or scarring, while you were still awake? You are fucking nuts and this is ludicrous. At the rate your schizophrenia is progressing you'll probably be too fucked in the head to even carry on a conversation in a few years. You'll literally just be a feral animal.

>>9913490
>You mean, "If you redefine things so that I am right and you are wrong..."
No, I mean if you use that [math] G= G^* [/math] and later you say that [math] G [/math] is purely imaginary. Because that's what you like to do, dumbass.

>You are very stupid to attempt to frame a paper about QFT as a pure exercise in real analysis.
Because it IS a pure exercise in real analysis that you even got wrong. You don't even know QFT to begin with.

>>9913896
>You don't even know QFT to begin with.
I understand the limit of the mattress problem well enough to consider its continuations with multiplectic algebras.

Your work is shite however the TiKz figures are top notch. Why not just become a figure bitch for other people's actual research?

>>9913526
>scientists would spread it
I didn't allege a conspiracy of not spreading it, I alleged a conspiracy of silence. Why do you think that I never misquote you detractors and yet you misquote me constantly?

>>9914408
it's not possible that every single scientist is part of the conspiracy. therefore, your work would be discussed if it was spread.

>>9913532
>>9914173
>>9914408
Where did the electric dildo implant go, you fucking schizo?

>>9913532
>>9914534
WHERE. DID. IT. FUCKING. GO??

Answer the god damn question, schizo.

>>9914534
>>9914952
I imagine it went back to the facility of the United States of America from whence it came.

>>9914956
While you were still awake, and without amy wounds or scarring?

>>9914956

>THE SECRET GOVERNMENT F A C I L I T Y

>>9914956
>>9914975
Well, schizo?

>>9915483
Well what?

>>9915563
How was the implant removed while you were still awake and without leaving any discernible surgical evidence? Stop being evasive and explain to me how that wasn't a hallucination.

>>9915572
Why do you think that happened?

>>9915622
Answer the question. You are deliberately playing dumb because you don't want to admit to having hallucinations.

>>9915700
Which question?

>>9915728
>How was the implant removed while you were still awake and without leaving any discernible surgical evidence? Stop being evasive and explain to me how that wasn't a hallucination.
Is this how you tried to get out of multiple rape charges?

>>9915563
>>9915622
>>9915728
This is really pathetic. OP knows he's hallucinating but is too narcissistic to admit he has schizophrenia.

Lots of people in this thread, or lots of people in the world operating the bots in this thread, are far too optimistic about their fate. Pic related, I guess you guys are too low on the totem pole to have seen that report yet.

>>9915789
Why can't you answer the question about where the implant you hallucinated went?

>>9915806
I want to know why he asked it.

>>9899377
OP is too clever for the rest of this board

>>9917038

>>9916991
Because your magical disappearing implant was a hallucination and you had sure as fuck better come up with a really good explanation for where it went if you want to still claim that you are sane. How did the implant leave your body without you knowing it while you were still awake and without leaving any surgical evidence?

>>9917257
>How did the implant leave your body without you knowing it while you were still awake and without leaving any surgical evidence?
Why do you think that happened? And why are you so sure that you will profit from this stupid line of inquiry rather that suffer for it?

>>9917757
Because you said right here that the implants you hallucomated are gone: >>9912655 >>9914956

How did they magically disappear from your body, and why is it so hard for you to answer this question? The longer you try to evade the question, the more obvious it is that you are aware of your own madness but are unwilling to admit it.

>>9917757
Because you said right here that the implants you hallucinated are gone: >>9912655 >>9914956

How did they magically disappear from your body, and why is it so hard for you to answer this question? The longer you try to evade the question, the more obvious it is that you are aware of your own mental illness but are unwilling to admit it.

>>9917985
>you said right here that the implants you hallucinated are gone
you are liar, and the linked posts you provided prove that you are a liar.

>>9917997
And I quote:
>the one I could feel with my finger is gone now, and I no longer experience electrical shocks in that shallow part of my anus.
>I imagine it went back to the facility of the United States of America from whence it came.
Those are your own words, and they seem to indicate that you are now lying. Would you care to explain how the above quotes are not you admitting that the """implants""" have magically disappeared from your body?

>>9913526
>because if your work had any merit, scientists would spread it regardless of what the government says
boy are you ever a fucking idiot

>>9913518
also never underestimate the ego and face saving required by those who've got it wrong in positions of power - the entire field knows it's full of shit 90% of the time, but they cannot stop the snowball of bullshit - when anyone shows them up or corrects a tiny error they immediately circle wagons and suppress in their natural human wagon trail instincts

>>9899377
>vixra

>>9912310
you're so far above these muther fuckers in intellect and writing - don't worry about em
those of us with brains can see they have been stomped into the dirt repeatedly
I would caution one thing - people are assholes here, and any psychiatric employ is paid to find problems or their work "has failed" the repeat business model, and money talks
thus many "conspiracies" are generic human behavoir

>>9918023
>Would you care to explain how the above quotes are not you admitting that the """implants""" have magically disappeared from your body?
no

>>9918054
>those of us with brains

>>9918031
>in positions of power

>>9918064
forgot pic
>>9918054
>>9918031

>>9918055
Then you admit that they were hallucinations.

>>9918118
>Then you admit that they were hallucinations.
Where?

>>9918118
You know how the faggots ask, "What are your crimes when they get back into a corner?" I won't ask, but since I have you backed into a corner right now, i am glad to point that your posts in this thread are so criminal as to warrant the death of everyone in your family, IMO, and your friends who like what you're writing, and their children.

>>9918138
"What are your crimes," when they get back into a corner?

>>9918134
By your total refusal/inability to provide an alternate account. You had a chance to argue your side of things, but instead you chose to act like a child and play dumb. So now that you know you are hallucinating, what are you going to do with this information? Seek treatment for your schizophrenia?

>>9918151
You still haven't answered me, and I will not answer you until you do.

>>9918134
>>9918138
>>9918147
>>9918155
You just fucked up son. I'm submitting my tip to the FBI right now. See you in hell.

>>9918161
>See you in hell.
I expect to have a few jolly laughs with you at the door to hell as I throw your loved ones in. If they kill you to try to show me that they hate you before that day then I will consider that in my treatment of them.
>protip

>>9918259
K, you should hear from them in the next few days.

>>9918259
Ebin

>>9918338
For me, it is personal.