PDA

View Full Version : Plagiarism



philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 05:56 PM
There is a new research stating that:

"The collapsing star would reach a stage at which its inside can shrink no further, because the loops cannot be compressed into anything smaller"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/black-holes-white-holes-explode-_n_5597006.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063


They concluded what my theory is saying since the beginning:

"If we compare both radii we will see that matter will never be able to reach the compression of a black hole. Therefore a black hole by its definition in GR cannot physically exist. Only a close-by counterpart made up of very unstable subatomic particles can exist according to FT."


Can an independent researcher with no affiliate with a non peer-reviewed paper file for plagiarism? If so who is responsible for that?


Regards,
philippeb8

Hoof Hearted
2014-Jul-20, 06:06 PM
Anyone who wants could write to the editor of wherever that article appeared and accuse the author(s) of plagiarism. However if you are going to go that route, I would think long and hard about whether you have a good case.

Plagiarism has occurred if the author(s) of the other article used your results without attribution. If they derived them independently, then there is no plagiarism.

EigenState
2014-Jul-20, 06:17 PM
Greetings,


Can an independent researcher with no affiliate with a non peer-reviewed paper file for plagiarism? If so who is responsible for that?

Can you file--that is are you physically capable of initiating a lawsuit--presumably you can. Do you have a case? Can you demonstrate unambiguously that the authors knew of your "publication" and made use of it to their advantage without citing your paper? I seriously doubt it.

At most, I would consider it a case of being scooped, not a case of plagiarism. Much more likely it is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Best regards,
ES

Solfe
2014-Jul-20, 06:20 PM
Have you had a paper published on this topic? If yes, then he could cite you. If you have not published a paper on this topic, then he should not cite you.

There is also a case of relevancy: he might have not cited a particular work on this topic because another work was more relevant.

Academically, if you have a prior paper, your best bet is to contact that author and ask them about it.

Legally, I give no advice.

AstroRockHunter
2014-Jul-20, 06:26 PM
There is a new research stating that:

"The collapsing star would reach a stage at which its inside can shrink no further, because the loops cannot be compressed into anything smaller"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/black-holes-white-holes-explode-_n_5597006.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063


They concluded what my theory is saying since the beginning:

"If we compare both radii we will see that matter will never be able to reach the compression of a black hole. Therefore a black hole by its definition in GR cannot physically exist. Only a close-by counterpart made up of very unstable subatomic particles can exist according to FT."


Can an independent researcher with no affiliate with a non peer-reviewed paper file for plagiarism? If so who is responsible for that?


Regards,
philippeb8

Just because the authors claim that
"The collapsing star would reach a stage at which its inside can shrink no further, because the loops cannot be compressed into anything smaller"is not the same as saying that a black hole cannot form.

So, I don't think that you have a case even if you had published something.

philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 06:30 PM
Have you had a paper published on this topic? If yes, then he could cite you. If you have not published a paper on this topic, then he should not cite you.

My paper was published on Elsevier 2 years ago, see section 1.2:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389212025126



There is also a case of relevancy: he might have not cited a particular work on this topic because another work was more relevant.

Academically, if you have a prior paper, your best bet is to contact that author and ask them about it.

I'll try, thanks.



Legally, I give no advice.

I can confirm their theory on this will work and it is most likely Nobel prize stuff so I'll defend my position.

philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 06:35 PM
At most, I would consider it a case of being scooped, not a case of plagiarism. Much more likely it is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.


I am impartial but this time I won't let them clip my wool and sell it.

EigenState
2014-Jul-20, 06:46 PM
Greetings,


I can confirm their theory on this will work and it is most likely Nobel prize stuff so I'll defend my position.

Remind us once more how many mainstream, peer-reviewed journals summarily rejected your manuscript?

And why is it that your perceived grievances against the scientific community constitute rational topics of discussion here?

Best regards,
ES

philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 06:52 PM
Remind us once more how many mainstream, peer-reviewed journals summarily rejected your manuscript?

Like I was mentioning in the PM, my work belongs in "new gravitational theories". So I was simply in the wrong section, and seeking the wrong journals.




And why is it that your perceived grievances against the scientific community constitute rational topics of discussion here?

This thread is informative and I have nothing against the scientific community.

Shaula
2014-Jul-20, 07:18 PM
Plagiarism is a serious accusation. It means more than just "That sounds a bit like I think my ideas might turn out to be, they must have copied me!"

The idea that black holes may not form is not a unique one. It has come up many, many times before and in many different frameworks. You would have to prove that your mechanism was the same as theirs in considerable detail and available to them in a form that would have led them to their published results. And from what is out there you are nowhere near that point. Given that their is based on LQG and yours is not you have fallen at the first hurdle. Just because a headline result from a theory is the same as one of your ideas does not imply or prove plagiarism.

philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 07:31 PM
Plagiarism is a serious accusation. It means more than just "That sounds a bit like I think my ideas might turn out to be, they must have copied me!"

The idea that black holes may not form is not a unique one. It has come up many, many times before and in many different frameworks. You would have to prove that your mechanism was the same as theirs in considerable detail and available to them in a form that would have led them to their published results. And from what is out there you are nowhere near that point. Given that their is based on LQG and yours is not you have fallen at the first hurdle. Just because a headline result from a theory is the same as one of your ideas does not imply or prove plagiarism.

Yes but they explained that black holes cannot form because of the gravitational time dilation and this is exactly what I am saying since 2009.

I've sent an email to the author and we'll see what he says.

philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 07:37 PM
If so who is responsible for that?


I guess one of these office double check that:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00001.html

Ara Pacis
2014-Jul-20, 08:07 PM
The whole point of the scientific method is repeatability. If they came to the same conclusion as you, instead of getting upset, consider yourself vindicated.

philippeb8
2014-Jul-20, 08:24 PM
The whole point of the scientific method is repeatability. If they came to the same conclusion as you, instead of getting upset, consider yourself vindicated.

Ok thank you all, I appreciate the support. I hope Hal Haggard will reply.

Strange
2014-Jul-20, 08:33 PM
Yes but they explained that black holes cannot form because of the gravitational time dilation and this is exactly what I am saying since 2009.

Really? You have only linked to a newspaper article but it looks as if their conclusions are based on loop quantum gravity. Your conclusion isn't (fortunately, we cannot discuss what yours is based on).


I've sent an email to the author and we'll see what he says.

I'm sure it will go in the bin with all the others.

EigenState
2014-Jul-20, 09:27 PM
Greetings,


I guess one of these office double check that:
http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00001.html

Why would the Canadian Intellectual Property Office have anything to do with this? Are you saying that you have a existing patent on this?

Also, you should recognize that in all probability it is Elsevier, not you, that holds copyright on whatever you published with them. That is the norm. That even makes your efforts to re-publish the same material elsewhere highly problematic.

Best regards,
ES

Swift
2014-Jul-20, 09:49 PM
I am closing this thread while it is discussed among the moderation team.

First, it doesn't seem an appropriate topic for Q&A.

To elaborate, this section of the forum is for astronomy and space exploration questions with straightforward, generally accepted answers.


Neither scientific publishing, nor scientific ethics seem to fit that description.

Second, we just had a thread on philippeb8's publishing woes, which was closed.

Anyway, we're going to discuss.

Swift
2014-Jul-21, 01:26 AM
After further discussion among the Moderation Team, it was decided to keep this thread closed.

philippeb8, do not start another thread about this specific topic, or other aspects of the publishing of your ATM ideas. If you do so again, you will be infracted.

If anyone wants a general discussion about scientific publishing or scientific ethics, start a thread in Science & Technology.