Is yesterday really gone? Lost & Found in Space

The talk of myself thinking to have ‘re-written physics’, occurs in the midst of what has been responsibly described as complete dissolution throughout theoretical physics - now sprayed with hypotheses, impersonating ‘theory’:

“Copenhagen interpretation, collapsation, quarks, super strings, tachyeons, glueons, gravitons, strangeness, big bang, charms, foam, static point mass emitting motionless electromagnetism beyond a static field, celeritas constant isolated from light speed and electromagnetism - denied as information, dark matter, ‘infra-red tired light’, Mach's principle sans inertia (leprechauns, put-ons, take-offs). Lately, hip-hop physics rappers are gargling about altogether eliminating Newton and Einstein from the (‘What?’) gravitational field and ‘waveicles’”; while alluding to the exemplary works of Gamow, Asimov and Eddington as being ‘gibberish’ (for example).

No, I certainly have not ‘rewritten physics’, although I have very significantly contributed to empirically re-cognizing and resuscitating it, in situ. Not without the New Age Devo’s :eek: impetuously spin doctored objections. :rolleyes:
 
Ophiolite said:
This is a blatant lie - unless you count material already stolen without permission from another website and placed on your own, to be acceptable.
Click to expand...

The 'other' website was http://einstein.periphery.cc/. It is my website, it no longer exists. There are many quotes in my narration and monologue, whereas, they all accredit their origins - to authenticate whatever original points I'm making; which are numerous and unique to my work.

All the rest of my work is original and has been for decades (nearly fifty years).

'Stolen' is it?

'Lies' are they?

When the source is identified it is not plagiarization, it is, or can be an infringement.

There's a world of ostensible difference.

When something is 'stolen', you dont publish who and where you stole it from.

'Stolen'?

That word applies to a growing hovel of plagiarizers - all over the net and elsewhere - relative to my original work - and that of many others.

You would authenticate - and emulate - such purloinments and filchings: if you could get away with it.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html,

My original work is published in small press and sold out all over the world, in four languages - since it was published in Naples, Italy and New Jersey, in 1959, and the Portola Institute's 1970 WHOLE EARTH CATALOGUE - complimented and distributed it internationally, by mail order, respectively.

It has since then been sold on consignment, in nine editions; in over forty one California - including university - bookstores, certainly including Berkeley, UCLA and Cal Tech.

'Gravity is the 4th Dimension (for example) has been graffitti on the walls of Lost Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Isla Vista, New York City subways & enclaves - and the world - for over thirty five years.

Dr. Richard Feynman paid his respects to the subjected work as we debated it in his study in October, 1966.

Cite what work was stolen, from whom and how it appears in my work as stolen material.

Make your allegory case or wash your enviously saturated invective, desperately name calling, familiarly whining and complaining, would be table-turning keyboard, or, wear and live with it. (Girar. O quemar. Buona fortuna.)
 
Having revisited your post I find that you mention the source for the material I was referring to. Mention it, in passing, without a clear identification through structure, language, punctuation, or font that you are identifying the source.

I ought, rightly then, to apologise for calling you a liar. I feel strangely disinclined to do so. Why? The seemingly unendless length of your rambles so discourages thorough reading that when one sees paragraph upon paragraph of unattributed material, one is reluctant to search and search to find that buried, obscure reference. Abbreviate your style and I shall not only apologise, but become your firmest advocate.
 
Ophiolite said:
Having revisited your post I find that you mention the source for the material I was referring to. Mention it, in passing, without a clear identification through structure, language, punctuation, or font that you are identifying the source.

I ought, rightly then, to apologise for calling you a liar. I feel strangely disinclined to do so. Why? The seemingly unendless length of your rambles so discourages thorough reading that when one sees paragraph upon paragraph of unattributed material, one is reluctant to search and search to find that buried, obscure reference. Abbreviate your style and I shall not only apologise, but become your firmest advocate.
Click to expand...

May other Readers of this rhubarb have the opportunity to know that the former website (now forum) at issue here is http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie .

May it be that those who take interest in this 'misunderstanding' may draw their own conclusions, regarding my proper identification of the origin of specific sources of information, which are stringently authentic and abundantly prolific - adding empirical authority to seemingly incredible premeses that the Reader would otherwise have to 'take my word for'.

The present forum at issue is, I acknowledge, a (condensed from 627 page, 6th edition) work in progress and certainly could use some sequential streamlining, editing (and there is much more information than presently posted)

(I think, Ophiolite, in you usage of the word 'unendless', you mean 'seemingly endless'. I salute your sincere and steadfast resumption of integrity in this discussion. That is much more like the venerable <if cranky?> Ophiolite that I - and others - have learned much from and are familiar with.) :rolleyes:

I look forward to your - perhaps inevitable - contributions to my work. You and any other such contributor will of course be duely accredited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top