Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Plagiarism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569

    Plagiarism

    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/2014/0...ushpmg00000063


    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
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-20 at 05:57 PM. Reason: Syntax error

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    20
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,859
    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.
    Solfe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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/2014/0...ushpmg00000063


    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.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    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...75389212025126

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,155
    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.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    If so who is responsible for that?
    I guess one of these office double check that:
    http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ci...h_wr00001.html
    Last edited by philippeb8; 2014-Jul-20 at 07:44 PM. Reason: Syntax error

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    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.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,742
    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
    I guess one of these office double check that:
    http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ci...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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,211
    I am closing this thread while it is discussed among the moderation team.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    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.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,211
    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.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •