The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: referencing the work of others on Usenet and the lack thereof
Replies: 7   Last Post: May 5, 2013 2:53 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
referencing the work of others on Usenet and the lack thereof
Posted: May 4, 2013 10:02 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On May 4, 2:38 pm, john <> wrote:
> Atoms are discs like galaxies.
> Yes, all the electons in an
> atom are in the same plane.
> They have to be, because when they turn
> they cause magnetism, and those magnetics
> don't want to fight
> john
> galaxy model

Now some are very decent posters who have ethics and etiquette about
giving credit to others for ideas. To name a few-- Karl Heuer in the
early 1990s and L. Walker in the 2000s. But most posters to Usenet
with new ideas never really reference whether the idea is original to
them or whether they stole the idea from someone else and re-named it
under their own new banner and claiming it as original to them.

So this is the problem in John Sefton's "galaxy model" where he goes
on to further claim electrons in discs. So where does John reference
Archimedes Plutonium with the Atom Totality where I ended most all of
my posts with the lines "whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies ".

Is that an oversight of John's, that he has often read my posts and my
ideas and then comes up with his own ideas, but which are only ideas
of the Atom Totality theory.

So where does John ever reference the Atom Totality theory? Never, as
far as I can see.

Then there is the issue of electrons as discs, which John has a
picture on his website, but no talk of the Maxwell Equations as to how
he ever derives discs. In fact John talks of black holes along with
the Maxwell Equations in a post of his in 2005.

So, the good thing to say about John's work is that he is not
satisfied with the status quo and looking for more and better physics.
But the bad thing to say about John's work is that it is not
referenced and not properly dated as a newsgroup date time stamp. An
improper referencing may indicate that the author is attempting to
steal from others and hence no references.

So if John wants to talk about a galaxy model for atoms, he should
have mentioned the Atom Totality theory. And if John wants to model
electrons as galaxies forming discs inside of atoms, John should
reference Archimedes Plutonium's Maxwell Equations as axioms over all
of physics in order to allow electrons to form discs inside of atoms.
John simply has no axiom set for physics and just piecemeal choses
bits and pieces of physics that further his opinion.

So John, if you want to offer a galaxy model-- fine, and great, but at
least reference Atom Totality theory. And if you want to show or prove
electrons form discs inside of atoms as a galaxy model, then at least
reference Archimedes Plutonium's "Maxwell Equations are the axioms
over all of physics".

Please be professional John, and not like the thousands of crank
posters who never reference or give credit to those that came before.

Now the way I reference is that I quote what has come before.

Referencing should not be hard for anyone to do and shows that you
have respect for the people with ideas before you.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.