IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 15th August 2012, 02:24 AM   #361
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
I work for the fashion thought police and my purpose is to suppress the views of anyone seen to disagree with the scientific orthodoxy as expressed in the gospels of Dawkins, Hawking and that notable celebrity chemist whose name I can't quite remember.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 03:06 AM   #362
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
Would people please post stating :-

1. What ideas, material or text has supposedly been plagiarized?
2. Who are the authors of the supposed plagiarism?
3. Where was the original publication?
4. Which parties and vested interests are hidden under the preudonyms used on this forum?

Please refrain from pejorative language.
Custard elbows
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 03:19 AM   #363
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Incidentally, the earliest reference I can find to alpha-particle clustering in nuclei is 1938.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 04:14 AM   #364
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Custard elbows
Reported!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:02 AM   #365
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
Would people please post stating :-

1. What ideas, material or text has supposedly been plagiarized?
2. Who are the authors of the supposed plagiarism?
3. Where was the original publication?
4. Which parties and vested interests are hidden under the preudonyms used on this forum?

Please refrain from pejorative language.
So far as I can see, these questions were not addressed by the OP or any of the links provided.
__________________
Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk
A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat
.
http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:38 AM   #366
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,473
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
Custard elbows
Lizard legs
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:46 AM   #367
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508

Guglinski posted in ZPEnergy (LATEST COMMENTS):



I received the following email from a physicist named Ian:


=================================
From: ian.fisk@worktech.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:24:55 +0000

Dear Wladimir Guglinski,

You are mistaken about the definition of plagiarism. Your book of pretty pictures has nothing to do with the scientific model of nuclei that existed for decades before your book was published. To take things to an absurd level, it would be you who is guilty of plagiarism!
Regards, Ian
=============================





I sent to Ian the following reply:

==============================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: ian.fisk@worktech.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:14:21 -0300

Dear Ian,
for decades the scientific model of light nuclei (before my book be published) had the SPHERICAL form. In my book the light nuclei have FLAT form.
Now the experiments are proven that my model is the correct, and the scientific model (existed decades before my book) is wrong.

As a flat nucleus should have NOT null electric quadrupole moment, in my book I proposed in the page 137 an explanation for the reason why the nuclei with null spin and null magnetic moment have also null electric quadrupole moment, in spite of they have NOT a spherical form.

The idea published in the journal Nature is a plagiarism of the proposal of mine.

So, what yoiu said actually reinforces that there is, indeed, a plagiarism

Thank you for your contribution

regards
WLAD
========================
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:50 AM   #368
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Wow, this Guglinski fellow really has no idea, does he.
Mashuna is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 06:06 AM   #369
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
for decades the scientific model of light nuclei (before my book be published) had the SPHERICAL form. In my book the light nuclei have FLAT form.
Nope. Many nuclei are ellipsoidal, including both prolate (more common) and oblate (less common) shapes. Some nuclei have more than one shape. I don't know anybody (else) that has suggested they are flat (as in two dimensional!?).

Last edited by Tubbythin; 15th August 2012 at 06:09 AM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 07:00 AM   #370
John Hewitt
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 924
So, Pedrone, are you Wladimir Guglinski? If so, don't hide behind a pseudonym, there is no reason to be ashamed of disagreeing with "experts." The shame is on them if they cannot endure being disagreed with.

I will, for now, assume that you are Wladimir Guglinski. Do you make the claim, on theoretical grounds, that ligh nucleii will have a flat, that is planar, shape rather than being arranged in three dimensions, as a speroid.

Thus, for example, are you asserting that the nucleons of a He(4) nucleus will be arranged as a flat square rather than, for example, as a tetrahedron? And did you derive a set of possible observational tests that might distinguish those two possibilities?
__________________
Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk
A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat
.
http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
John Hewitt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 07:43 AM   #371
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
So, Pedrone, are you Wladimir Guglinski? If so, don't hide behind a pseudonym, there is no reason to be ashamed of disagreeing with "experts." The shame is on them if they cannot endure being disagreed with.
There is a big difference between "disagreeing" with an expert and entirely erroneously accusing them of plagiarism.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 02:07 PM   #372
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Guglinski posted in ZPEnergy (LATEST COMMENTS):
And I Replied (when will this appear in the ZPEnergy LATEST COMMENTS?):
Dear Wladimir,

This has nothing to do with that fact that the scientific model of nuclei as presents in Nature is not plagiarism because it has nothing to do with your book:
· Your book has pretty picture of nuclei that you made up.
· The model is based on decades of science and empirical observations. No pretty pictures are needed.

A FLAT form is a ridiculous idea for light nuclei which are measured to have a SPHERICAL form.

The scientific theory published in the journal Nature is a not plagiarism of the proposal of yours because it has nothing to do with your proposal. It is not a FLAT form. It is not based on pretty pictures.
So what I said destroys your idea that there is plagiarism.

A poster on the JREF forum is touting your book and the extracts show it is obviously wrong (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...29#post8535329). It seems start with ignoring the fundamentals of QM that are backed up by empirical evidence, e.g. that atomic systems have a spin that is not classical spin. Any undergraduate physics student knows that any quantum system such as a nucleus with a spin of zero has to have no magnetic moment. Spin = 0 means angular momentum = 0 means no magnetic moment.

Thank you for your comments.
Ian
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 02:37 PM   #373
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by John Hewitt View Post
1. What ideas, material or text has supposedly been plagiarized?
1. None, making the rest of the post moot.
Guglinski is just yet another physics crank: Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XIV
He has the fantasy that nuclei can be modeled by him drawing cartoons of them as flat rings (thus Quantum Ring Theory) and ignoring the real world!

The paper “How atomic nuclei cluster” by Ebran et all in Nature does not model nuclei as pretty pictures of flat rings.
The paper is not even about the overall shapes of nuclei - it is about how protons and neutrons cluster within nuclei.
The authors probably have never heard of an obscure book (Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,003,093) published by an obscure Brazilian mechanical engineer who has only published in the Journal of Nuclear Physics., This is basicaly a blog run by Andrea Rossi who is making himself appear to be a cold nuclear fusion scam artist with his still unsupported claims about his power plants, Cold Fusion Claims.

Guglinski is just deluded about the paper having any connection to his book.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 03:56 PM   #374
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And I Replied (when will this appear in the ZPEnergy LATEST COMMENTS?):
Dear Wladimir,

This has nothing to do with that fact that the scientific model of nuclei as presents in Nature is not plagiarism because it has nothing to do with your book:
· Your book has pretty picture of nuclei that you made up.
· The model is based on decades of science and empirical observations. No pretty pictures are needed.

A FLAT form is a ridiculous idea for light nuclei which are measured to have a SPHERICAL form.

The scientific theory published in the journal Nature is a not plagiarism of the proposal of yours because it has nothing to do with your proposal. It is not a FLAT form. It is not based on pretty pictures.
So what I said destroys your idea that there is plagiarism.

A poster on the JREF forum is touting your book and the extracts show it is obviously wrong (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...29#post8535329). It seems start with ignoring the fundamentals of QM that are backed up by empirical evidence, e.g. that atomic systems have a spin that is not classical spin. Any undergraduate physics student knows that any quantum system such as a nucleus with a spin of zero has to have no magnetic moment. Spin = 0 means angular momentum = 0 means no magnetic moment.

Thank you for your comments.
Ian


Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:


==========================================
From: ian.fisk@worktech.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:03:42 +0000

Dear Wladimir,

This has nothing to do with that fact that the scientific model of nuclei as presents in Nature is not plagiarism because it has nothing to do with your book:

· Your book has pretty picture of nuclei that you made up

· The model is based on decades of science and empirical observations. No pretty pictures are needed.

A FLAT form is a ridiculous idea for light nuclei which are measured to have a SPHERICAL form.

The scientific theory published in the journal Nature is a not plagiarism of the proposal of yours because it has nothing to do with your proposal. It is not a FLAT form. It is not based on pretty pictures.

So what I said destroys your idea that there is plagiarism.

A poster on the JREF forum is touting your book and the extracts show it is obviously wrong (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...29#post8535329). It seems start with ignoring the fundamentals of QM that are backed up by empirical evidence, e.g. that atomic systems have a spin that is not classical spin. Any undergraduate physics student knows that any quantum system such as a nucleus with a spin of zero has to have no magnetic moment. Spin = 0 means angular momentum = 0 means no magnetic moment.

Thank you for your comments.
Ian
===========================================





I sent to Ian the following reply:

======================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: ian.fisk@worktech.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:31:38 -0300

Dear Ian,
regarding to your words:

1- The model is based on decades of science and empirical observations. No pretty pictures are needed.

2- A FLAT form is a ridiculous idea for light nuclei which are measured to have a SPHERICAL form.

sorry to say that you are wrong.

The flat form of the light nuclei is observed by new experiments.
Look at the figure 1 shown in the link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11246.html

If you cannot realize the difference between a spherical and a flat form, I am very sorry.

I sent to Martin Freer a message where I wrote:
“Dear Martin Freer
With that distribution of charge of the 10Ne20 structure shown in Figure 1, how to explain that 10Ne20 has null electric quadrupole momentum ? That structure shown in Figure 1 is not spherical,”

And he replied by saying:
“The nucleus is intrinsically deformed as shown, but has spin 0. Consequently, there is no preferred orientation in the laboratory frame and thus the experimental quadrupole is an average over all orientations and hence is zero. Experimentally is is possible to show that the deformation of the ground state is non zero by breaking the symmetry and rotating the nucleus.
Martin”

If the experiments should have detected spherical forms of the light nuclei, then Marting would have to reply to me:

“Dear Wladimir
you are wrong. The experiments have detected spherical forms of the light nuclei”.

Dear Ian,
it’s obvious that it’s hard to you to accept experiments which prove that it’s wrong the nuclear models which you believed (along decades) to be correct.

I cannot waste my time with a person who do not accept the results of experiments, and so I will not take seriously any other reply of yours.

Regards,
WLAD
=====================================
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 04:01 PM   #375
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Nope. Many nuclei are ellipsoidal
Yes, but they are NOT light nuclei.

They are heavy nuclei, as for instance uranium 92U.

Actually the 92U is spherical, but when it is excited it takes the ellipsoidal form.
Such phenomenon is named "accordion effect" in Quantum Ring Theory
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 04:01 PM   #376
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Guglinski is just deluded about the paper having any connection to his book.
Just got a reply from Guglinski which implies that he has not even read the letter in Nature!
Quote:
The flat form of the light nuclei is observed by new experiments.
Look at the figure 1 shown in the link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11246.html
The pre-print of the article is here: How atomic nuclei cluster
There are no "new experiments" reported in the letter though it does cite experiments.
All of the figures are from theoretical calculations, i.e. 2D plots of three dimensional theory and include three-dimensional density plots (Figure 1 inserts) !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 04:05 PM   #377
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:
Guglinski has not even read the letter in Nature!
If he had then he would never have written that nonsense to which I replied:
Quote:
Sorry to say that you are wrong. You have not cited any new experiments. You have cited a letter in Nature called “How atomic nuclei cluster” which does not contain any new experiments (it does cite recent experiments).
The letter presents the modern treatment of clusters of nucleons and traces the origin of the clustering (known about since the 1930’s) to the depth of the confining nuclear potential.

If you cannot realize the these are 2D graphs calculated from three dimensional theory and so are “flat” by definition, I am very sorry.
If you cannot be bothered to try to read the actual letter (pre-print here), I am very sorry.
Figure 1 is
Plots of self-consistent ground-state densities of 20Ne, calculated with the nuclear energy density functionals: DD-ME2[23] (top), and Skyrme SLy4 [22, 30] (bottom). The densities (in units of fm��3) are plotted in the x-z plane of
the intrinsic frame of reference that coincides with the principal axes of the nucleus, with z chosen as the symmetry axis. The inserts show the corresponding three-dimensional density plots and the density profiles along the symmetry axis, respectively.

Your book is (by your definition) plagiarism of Weizsacker and Wheeler: “The occurrence of molecular states in atomic nuclei and the formation of clusters of nucleons were already predicted in the 30's by von Weizsacker and Wheeler
[1, 2].”.
In fact "recent experiments" is not quite right - the experiments are at least 6 years old because the reference is: W.v Oertzen, M. Freer, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Phys. Rep. 432, 43-113 (2006), and references therein.

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th August 2012 at 04:07 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 04:39 PM   #378
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
The flat form of the light nuclei is observed by new experiments.
Look at the figure 1 shown in the link:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11246.html
Err, that is a two dimensional projection.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2012, 05:27 PM   #379
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Yes, but they are NOT light nuclei.

They are heavy nuclei, as for instance uranium 92U.

Actually the 92U is spherical, but when it is excited it takes the ellipsoidal form.
Such phenomenon is named "accordion effect" in Quantum Ring Theory
The Hoyle state in 12C is deformed.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 04:34 AM   #380
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

Quote:
Sorry to say that you are wrong. You have not cited any new experiments. You have cited a letter in Nature called “How atomic nuclei cluster” which does not contain any new experiments (it does cite recent experiments).
The letter presents the modern treatment of clusters of nucleons and traces the origin of the clustering (known about since the 1930’s) to the depth of the confining nuclear potential.

If you cannot realize the these are 2D graphs calculated from three dimensional theory and so are “flat” by definition, I am very sorry.
If you cannot be bothered to try to read the actual letter (pre-print here), I am very sorry.
Figure 1 is
Plots of self-consistent ground-state densities of 20Ne, calculated with the nuclear energy density functionals: DD-ME2[23] (top), and Skyrme SLy4 [22, 30] (bottom). The densities (in units of fm��3) are plotted in the x-z plane of
the intrinsic frame of reference that coincides with the principal axes of the nucleus, with z chosen as the symmetry axis. The inserts show the corresponding three-dimensional density plots and the density profiles along the symmetry axis, respectively.

Your book is (by your definition) plagiarism of Weizsacker and Wheeler: “The occurrence of molecular states in atomic nuclei and the formation of clusters of nucleons were already predicted in the 30's by von Weizsacker and Wheeler
[1, 2].”.


Guglinski has not even read the letter in Nature!

If he had then he would never have written that nonsense to which I replied:

In fact "recent experiments" is not quite right - the experiments are at least 6 years old because the reference is: W.v Oertzen, M. Freer, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Phys. Rep. 432, 43-113 (2006), and references therein.


Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:


From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: ian.fisk@worktech.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:17:41 -0300

Dear Ian,
in this article published by Martin Freer in 2010 we see that nuclei kept their SPHERICAL form, in spite of formed by clusters (see Figure 1):
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

Now, in 2012, the experiments changed the image of the light nuclei: they are NOT SPHERICAL.
Figure 1 of the paper published in 2012 by Nature shows that the 20Ne (formed by 5 clusters) is FLAT:

1- three clusters are distributed along the zy-plane, and they form a circle with radius 8fm (a FLAT circle)

2- two clusters are distributed along a direction parallel to the x-axis, symmetrically with regard to the flat circle, with distances +2fm and -2fm


In the case of 16O, there is not the two additinoal clusters existing in the 20Ne, and so the oxygen nucleus 16O must be FLATTER than 20Ne.


In Quantum Ring Theory actually there are not clusters formed by 2He4. There is only one central 2He4, surrounded by nucleons 1H2.

The experiments will show if my theory is correct (having a central 2He4), or not

So, instead of to waste my time with you, I preffer to wait the results of more new experiments.

regards
WLAD
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 06:05 AM   #381
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:


From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: ian.fisk@worktech.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 08:17:41 -0300

Dear Ian,
in this article published by Martin Freer in 2010 we see that nuclei kept their SPHERICAL form, in spite of formed by clusters (see Figure 1):
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

Now, in 2012, the experiments changed the image of the light nuclei: they are NOT SPHERICAL.
Figure 1 of the paper published in 2012 by Nature shows that the 20Ne (formed by 5 clusters) is FLAT:

1- three clusters are distributed along the zy-plane, and they form a circle with radius 8fm (a FLAT circle)

2- two clusters are distributed along a direction parallel to the x-axis, symmetrically with regard to the flat circle, with distances +2fm and -2fm


In the case of 16O, there is not the two additinoal clusters existing in the 20Ne, and so the oxygen nucleus 16O must be FLATTER than 20Ne.


In Quantum Ring Theory actually there are not clusters formed by 2He4. There is only one central 2He4, surrounded by nucleons 1H2.

The experiments will show if my theory is correct (having a central 2He4), or not

So, instead of to waste my time with you, I preffer to wait the results of more new experiments.

regards
WLAD
I think Guglinski should stop wasting other people's time with ridiculous claims of plagiarism and astonishingly arrogant statements of assumed superiority.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 02:18 PM   #382
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:
Real Ignorance shown by Guglinski in ZPEnergy
Hi pedrone, thank you again for documenting the inability of Wladimir Guglinski to understand even simple English!
  • There are no "new experiments" in the letter.
  • The figures were not generated from QRT and so there is no plagiarism.
  • Figure 1 is 2D cuts through 3D data.
What I replied:
Quote:
You need to actually read the Nature article. There are no new experiments. None of the figures are experimental data. All of the figures are from theories that are not QRT. Thus it is impossible that there is any plagiarism.

You need to read the caption of Figure 1. This is a 2D plot of 3D data with 3D inserts.
Plots of self-consistent ground-state densities of 20Ne, calculated with the nuclear energy density functionals: DD-ME2[23] (top), and Skyrme SLy4 [22, 30] (bottom). The densities (in units of fm��3) are plotted in the x-z plane of
the intrinsic frame of reference that coincides with the principal axes of the nucleus, with z chosen as the symmetry axis. The inserts show the corresponding three-dimensional density plots and the density profiles along the symmetry axis, respectively.
Can you see x?
Can you see y?
Can you see z?
Can you see “three-dimensional”?

Figure 1 of the paper published in 2012 by Nature shows that the 20Ne (formed by 5 clusters) is SPHERICAL:
1- three clusters are distributed along the zy-plane with the z-plane suppressed, and they form a circle with radius 8fm (a SPHERICAL sphere)
2- two clusters are distributed along a direction parallel to the x-axis, symmetrically with regard to the spherical sphere, with distances +2fm and -2fm

You also remain unable to understand that this figure that you wrongly interpret as plotting 2D data has nothing to do with QRT because they do not use QRT to calculate the data! This is not plagiarism.
This is an example of what is called “I see bunnies in the clouds” logic – you see a diagram that looks like your cartoons and think that your theory was used to calculate it. Read the paper. You are wrong.

People have been drawing 2D plots of nuclei density that have included clusters ever since they were predicted in the 30's by von Weizsacker and Wheeler:
[1] C.F.v Weizssacker, Naturwiss 26, 209-217 (1938)
[2] J.A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 52, 1107-1122 (1937).

It is nice that you have found Scholarpedia (the peer reviewed version of Wikipedia).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 02:27 PM   #383
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
in this article published by Martin Freer in 2010 we see that nuclei kept their SPHERICAL form, in spite of formed by clusters (see Figure 1):

Now, in 2012, the experiments changed the image of the light nuclei: they are NOT SPHERICAL.
Oh dear, pedrone. The highlighting implies that you are showing signs of being as ignorant as Wladimir Guglinski !

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - there are no experiments.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - Figure 1 is from 3D data. They have just chosen a cut through the data to produce a 3D plot. The light nuclei are not flat. There are three-dimensional inserts.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - none of the images are changes to the figures in the Scholarpedia article, Clusters in nuclei.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 03:05 PM   #384
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Oh dear, pedrone. The highlighting implies that you are showing signs of being as ignorant as Wladimir Guglinski !

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - there are no experiments.


Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:



============================
From: ian.fisk@worktech.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:01:00 +0000

Dear Wladimir,
You need to actually read the Nature article. There are no new experiments. None of the figures are experimental data. All of the figures are from theories that are not QRT. Thus it is impossible that there is any plagiarism.
==============================






==================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: ian.fisk@worktech.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:40:07 -0300

Dear Ian,
concerning your words:
"You need to actually read the Nature article. There are no new experiments"

you are wrong.

The experiments are made by John Arrington, published in 2012:
http://www.anl.gov/articles/new-pict...ucleus-emerges [www.anl.gov]

As I said, I dont want to waste my time with your stupid arguments

regards
WLAD
==================================
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 03:24 PM   #385
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:
...
Reply to Guglinski pointing out his continued delusion abut plagiarism:
Quote:
You are right. I should have wrote “You need to actually read the Nature article. There are no new experiments in the article. None of the figures are experimental data. All of the figures are from theories that are not QRT. Thus it is impossible that there is any plagiarism.”

Perhaps you should try to understand the stupid argument that is accusing a Nature letter of plagiarism when that letter uses nothing from your theory.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 03:31 PM   #386
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,859
So when is this case of obvious plagiarism going to court?
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 03:41 PM   #387
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - there are no experiments.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - Figure 1 is from 3D data. They have just chosen a cut through the data to produce a 3D plot. The light nuclei are not flat. There are three-dimensional inserts.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - none of the images are changes to the figures in the Scholarpedia article, Clusters in nuclei.
Are you actually going to read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions, pedrone?

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - Figure 2 does not show a central 2He4. It shows a small possibility of finding a single nucleon at the center.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2012, 10:18 PM   #388
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post


Reply by Guglinski in ZPEnergy:



============================
From: ian.fisk@worktech.com
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:01:00 +0000

Dear Wladimir,
You need to actually read the Nature article. There are no new experiments. None of the figures are experimental data. All of the figures are from theories that are not QRT. Thus it is impossible that there is any plagiarism.
==============================






==================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: ian.fisk@worktech.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:40:07 -0300

Dear Ian,
concerning your words:
"You need to actually read the Nature article. There are no new experiments"

you are wrong.

The experiments are made by John Arrington, published in 2012:
http://www.anl.gov/articles/new-pict...ucleus-emerges [www.anl.gov]

As I said, I dont want to waste my time with your stupid arguments

regards
WLAD
=================================
As Ian stated, there are no new experiments in the paper you cite as plagiarism. The Arrington paper is from March!

I am a scientist, although not a physicist, and it is clear you neither understand plagiarism nor the Nature paper.

Last edited by Giordano; 16th August 2012 at 10:19 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 02:45 AM   #389
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
As Ian stated, there are no new experiments in the paper you cite as plagiarism. The Arrington paper is from March!

I am a scientist, although not a physicist, and it is clear you neither understand plagiarism nor the Nature paper.




?????????



Arrington paper was published in March 2012.

The paper "How atomic nuclei cluster" was published by Nature in July 2012

??????????????

If the proposals of the paper published in Nature are not based on experimental results, from where the authors extracted their data, in order to propose a new image of the light nuclei ?????

Is it only a COINCIDENCE ????

In March 2012 Arrington published the results of his experiment, showing the new image of the nuclei.


And in July the Nature publishes a paper with a new image of the nucleus, based only on SPECULATIONS ????


Besides, as the flat form of the new image of the nucleus requires a NEW SPECULATION (in order to explain why the electric quadrupole moment is null), does it means that Nature had published a mere NEW SPECULATION , which defies the current models of Nuclear Physics ?????


Last edited by pedrone; 17th August 2012 at 02:50 AM.
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 05:34 AM   #390
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
If the proposals of the paper published in Nature are not based on experimental results, from where the authors extracted their data, in order to propose a new image of the light nuclei ?????
Pedrone - have you read the letter in question? They're doing calculations. They're doing calculations using current physics, not QRT. The images come from the calculations.

Calculations are not speculations. They, by the very fact they're calculated from current models, cannot contradict the model from which they are calculated.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 06:09 AM   #391
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Pedrone, did Guglinski use either the Skyrme SLy4 or the DD-ME2 energy-density functionals in his work?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 10:34 AM   #392
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Pedrone, did Guglinski use either the Skyrme SLy4 or the DD-ME2 energy-density functionals in his work?

No, he did not.

However, the nuclear physicists used it along 100 years, and they did not succeed to discover that light nuclei are NOT SPHERICAL, from the theoretical way.
They had discovered only AFTER the experiments made by John Arrington showed it to them.

And Guglinski, who never used Skyme SLy4 or DO-ME2 energy-density, had discovered that light nuclei are NOT SPHERICAL, by using his brain, and published it 6 years before the experiments made by Arrington.

Therefore, dear Tubbythin, we realize that Skyrme SLy4 or the DD-ME2 energy-density did not help the nuclear theorists in their research trying to discover the real structure of nuclei.

Last edited by pedrone; 17th August 2012 at 10:35 AM.
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 10:56 AM   #393
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
And Guglinski, who never used Skyme SLy4 or DO-ME2 energy-density
So how is using those functionals plagiarism?
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2012, 03:13 PM   #394
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post

No, he did not.

However, the nuclear physicists used it along 100 years
I doubt that. Skyrme wasn't born 100 years ago and didn't publish significant work till the late fifties.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2012, 03:10 PM   #395
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Exclamation pedrone, Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions

Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
And in July the Nature publishes a paper with a new image of the nucleus, based only on SPECULATIONS ????
One more time, pedrone.
Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - there are no new experiments in the paper.
The only refenece to experiments is to a review published in 2006.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - Figure 1 is from 3D data. They have just chosen a cut through the data to produce a 3D plot. The light nuclei are not flat. There are three-dimensional inserts.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - none of the images are changes to the figures in the Scholarpedia article, Clusters in nuclei.

Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - Figure 2 does not show a central 2He4. It shows a small possibility of finding a single nucleon at the center.

And:
Read the letter rather than regurgitating Guglinski's delusions - This is a letter about the theory of clusters of nucleons in nuclei that has existed since the 1930's and backed up by emprical evidence:


Quote:
The occurrence of molecular states in atomic nuclei and the formation of clusters of nucleons were already predicted in the 30's by von Weizsacker and Wheeler [1, 2].
  • [1] C.F.v Weizssacker, Naturwiss 26, 209-217 (1938)
  • [2] J.A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 52, 1107-1122 (1937).
Quote:
Numerous experimental studies have revealed a wealth of data on clustering phenomena in light nuclei [4]

  • [4] W.v Oertzen, M. Freer, Y. Kanada-En'yo, Phys. Rep. 432, 43-113 (2006), and references therein.
Calling this established science speculation is insanely ignorant. Thinking that it has anything to do with Guglinski's delusions is just insane .

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th August 2012 at 03:18 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2012, 03:41 PM   #396
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
In March 2012 Arrington published the results of his experiment, showing the new image of the nuclei.
Wrong: In March 2012 a press release quoted John Arrington on the results of an experiment, explaining the old, existing image of the beryllium nucleus.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2012, 03:53 PM   #397
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,500
Originally Posted by pedrone View Post
And Guglinski, who never used Skyme SLy4 or DO-ME2 energy-density, had discovered that light nuclei are NOT SPHERICAL, by using his brain, and published it 6 years before the experiments made by Arrington.
Guglinski displayed his ignorance of nuclear science (and basic reality) by coming up with a fantasy that nuclei are flat when they are measured to be three-dimensional ("spherical"). Light nuclei also need not be spherical which was known for decades before Guglinski published his book.
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank XIV
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2012, 09:57 PM   #398
pedrone
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 508
On recent findings showing that some principles are missing in Nuclear Physics


Ahead is an exchanging of emails
between
John Arrington and W. Guglinski,
concerning the new experimental findings
made in the Argonne National Laboratory,
published in March-2012


From John Arrington to Guglinski:

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:09:22 -0700
From: johna_6@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: plagiarism in the journal Nature
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com

Dear Wladimir,

I have seen some of your discussion, in particular in the context of my measurements of the EMC effect in light nuclei. I have not looked at your theory in any detail, in part because detailed nuclear structure is not my main focus, in part because I see no deficiencies with the present models, and in part because you appear to misunderstood the details of our measurements. Our results are completely consistent with standard calculations of nuclear structure. The surprise was in the fact that these structure effects, involving low energy scales, have such a large consequence in a high-energy scattering experiment probing the quarks of the nucleus. Several points made in trying to interpret our experiment in the context of quantum ring theory appear to be based on significant misunderstanding of our experiment and what it probes. Thus, in the context of my research, I see no issues which are not addressed by
conventional nuclear structure calculations, and so have not spend time investigating alternate models.

As for the paper in Nature, I should say that I feel very strongly about issues related to plagiarism and other issues related to ethics in science and publication. However, the idea of clustering in nuclei is decades old, and so simply examining clustering effects could hardly be called plagiarism. Similarly, the idea of non-spherical nuclei is well established, so I cannot tell what idea you feel has been plagiarized.
However, as a general statement, my feeling is that if someone performs a calculation or experiment which yields some interesting result, then this is not plagiarism even if someone else has suggested or observed the effect before.

Best Regards,
John



Reply by Guglinski to John Arrington:

From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: johna_6@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: plagiarism in the journal Nature
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 23:16:14 -0300

Dear John Arrington,

Concerning your words ahead, sorry to say that you are wrong:
“… because I see no deficiencies with the present models,and in part because you appear to misunderstood the details of our measurements. Our results are completely consistent with standard calculations of nuclear structure.”

They are wrong because:
1- the experiments are showing that light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form
2- and from the current principles of Nuclear Physics it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why.

Even if you consider the nuclei formed by clusters, however it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why the nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form.

Take for example the oxigen nucleus 16O, with 8 protons and 8 neutrons.
In 2010 Martin Freer published the paper “Clusters in nuclei”, where he wrote:

A traditional description of the nucleus is one in which there is a roughly homogeneous distribution of protons and neutrons. However, even at the inception of nuclear science it was known that conglomerates of nucleons (nuclear clustering) were extremely important in determining the structure of light nuclei. In many cases a more appropriate picture of the nucleus is the one shown in Figure 1.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Clusters_in_nuclei

The Figure 1 shown in his paper shows the nucleus 16O, with a SPHERICAL form.

Why the theorists, along 70 years, always had supposed that nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair should have a spherical form?

It’s easy to understand why, and let’s see it by considering the nucleus 16O, as follows:

1- The resultant of forces (attraction and repulsion) on each proton actuates in the RADIAL direction (such direction is along a line which crosses the geometrical center of the nucleus)
2- The same happens regarding to each neutron.
3- Due to the actuation of radial forces ONLY, the distribution of protons and neutrons must be SPHERICAL.
4- It’s IMPOSSIBLE, from the principles of the standard Nuclear Physics, to find a resultant of forces capable to form a nucleus 16O with SPHERICAL form

In order to form a nucleus 16O with non-spherical distribution of protons and neutrons, there is need to have a NON-radial force on the protons and neutrons, within the nucleus 16O.

And it’s impossible, from the principles of the standard Nuclear Physics, to explain such non-radial force actuating on protons and neutrons within the 16O.

Other problem is that structure of the nucleus 4Be9 detected by your experiments. The unmatched neutron is 7fm far a way of the rest of the nucleus. Well, as the strong force actuates in the range of 2fm, it seems that the strong force, itself, is not able to get the aglutination of the nuclei (as proposed in my Quantum Ring Theory).

You are trying to explain it by the addoption of an ad hoc hypothesis:
“When nucleons get too close together, however, the forces that usually constrain quarks can get disrupted, modifying the quark structure of the protons and neutrons or possibly even forming composite particles from the quarks of two nucleons.”

And suppose that the theorists accept your ad hoc hypothesis.

Nevertheless, how will you explain why the nucleus 16O has a non-spherical form ?
Probably you will introduce another ad hoc hypothesis.
However your new ad hoc hypothesis must be able to suppose the existence of a non-radial resultant of forces within the nuclei (because it’s the unique way to explain the non-spherical form of the 16O).

Therefore, even if the theorists accept your firs ad hoc hypothesis regarding the disruption of quarks, your theory cannot explain why the nucleus 16O is non-spherical.

Dear John, in 1993 I started to study deeply the standard nuclear theroy, by considering the following points of departure:
1- the principles of Nuclear Theory
2- the nuclear properties
3- the nuclear models

And after a deep reflection, I arrived to the following conclusion:

It’s IMPOSSIBLE, from the current principles of standard Nuclear Physics, to find a nuclear model compatible with the nuclear properties. There is need to introduce NEW PRINCIPLES in the standard Nuclear Theory, because some fundamental principles existing in the nature are missing in the theory.

That’s why I decided to look for a new nuclear model, working with some new principles missing in the standard Nuclear Physics.

Among many conclusions infered from my new nuclear model, one of them was the following:
The light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form (and the reason is because in my new nuclear model there is a non-radial force actuating on protons and neutrons).

Of course in 2006, when my book was published by the Bäuu Institute Press, all the nuclear theorists of the world (who had touch with my proposals) used to claim that I was a crackpot, and my theory was pseudoscientific, because (among other reasons) my nuclear model was absurd, because it contradicted the principles of the prevailing standard Nuclear Theory.

Now in 2012 your experiments confirmed that light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair have non-spherical form, as predicted in my theory published in 2006.

Therefore, beyond all those evidences which led me in 1993 to the conclusion that some fundamental principles existing in nature are missing in the standard Nuclear Theory, we have now in 2012 ONE MORE STRONG EVIDENCE: your experiments, which confirmed my hypothesis that light nuclei with Z=pair and N=pair are non-spherical.

Sometimes I get astonished with the scientists, when I see that they refuse to use their logic. Because the logic concerning the nuclear physics is clear: by keeping the current principles of the standard Nuclear Theory, it’s impossible to get a theory compatible with all the nuclear phenomena.

Finally, I wish to say that I am sure about the following: the new upcoming experiments will show that I am right.

Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
pedrone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2012, 12:18 AM   #399
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,930
Obviously W Guglinski is a tiny party hat for my behind, and John Arrington says as much to his face, though far more politely.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2012, 03:11 AM   #400
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Can we not keep this nonsense to a single thread?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.