Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Absolute rubbish! Paradigm shifting science but they didn't have enough room? You delusional and narcisstic beyond belief. That scenario wouldn't happen, you don't submit work to a journal only for them to send an email back and say "sorry bud, not enough room". It just goes to show you have absolutely no experience of publishing and are talking out if your...

You do need psychiatric help bud, for talking out of your...
You seem to know more about my comm with nature physics, do you? Get real

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Absolute rubbish! Paradigm shifting science but they didn't have enough room? You delusional and narcisstic beyond belief. That scenario wouldn't happen, you don't submit work to a journal only for them to send an email back and say "sorry bud, not enough room". It just goes to show you have absolutely no experience of publishing and are talking out if your...

You do need psychiatric help bud, for talking out of your...
You seem to know more about my comm with nature physics, do you? Get real

Put your money where your mouth is and post up the editor's email (including the email header) as well as the original paper.

* awaits lame excuse as to why the above request cannot be fulfilled *

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by john_bmth
[ You have provided absolutely no evidence of any of the above, or your "time machine". This type of junk does not believe in the S&T forum.

edit on 8-5-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

On the contrary all the evidence is there on the link and in this thread.
Get help from a scientific person, if you are not able to interpret the results

If we need help from someone else to interpret your lack of information that decreases the validity of your claim. Also, a device that you have created, that seems to be so complicated to need a seasoned physicist to clearly explain it, relies on no prior knowledge of physics by you?

Originally posted by john_bmth
[
Put your money where your mouth is and post up the editor's email (including the email header) as well as the original paper.

* awaits lame excuse as to why the above request cannot be fulfilled *

Put some decency in your posting rather than order me about like this.
Notwithstanding the email is below ( Hope Im not violating Nature and Ats T & C ) but the technical paper is not meant for the public domain as yet

Quote

Thanks for your response Sir, Noted.
Though am surprised, since breaking of any known laws of physics, is once in a century event, if at all.
Whats more interesting, is that, in the subsequent days, I did discover and synthesise , 'Anti Gravity " with the same device.The results were replicated 4 times.

Nonetheless thanks

B Rgds
Savvy



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Von: "[email protected]"
An:
Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 10. März 2010, 17:26:31 Uhr
Betreff: Your Nature Physics submission

Thank you for submitting your manuscript which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature Physics' policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Nature Physics Administration


This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System

Unquote

Originally posted by topherman420
Also, a device that you have created, that seems to be so complicated to need a seasoned physicist to clearly explain it, relies on no prior knowledge of physics by you?

Yes you do.
Lol. No prior knowledge of physics. Hilarious, get educated dude

How is this thread not in the hoax bin by now? If this was a ufo claim it would have been. The OP has no clue what he is talking about (as demonstrated by his postings) do at least move this to the grey area.

I bet I check in on this "amazing" leap of knowledge in a few years and it went knowhere


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Von: "[email protected]"
An:
Gesendet: Mittwoch, den 10. März 2010, 17:26:31 Uhr
Betreff: Your Nature Physics submission

Thank you for submitting your manuscript which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature Physics' policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature Physics.

I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.

Yours sincerely

Nature Physics Administration


This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System

Unquote

That's a polite way of saying "your work is not good enough". Notice it was rejected by the editor or other screening staff from the get go, it didn't even get to the referee stage. The line "Decisions of this kind are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to succeed in the competition for limited space" is a polite way of saying "your paper will not get past the referees and, as they only have a finite amount of time to review material, we have to reject work that has no chance of being published as to not burden them with time-wasting reviews". I assure you, if it did get past the referee stage, their comments would not be so sugar-coated. And so on with the rest of the email.

Notice how it all sounds so generic. A quick goog leof the main body reveals that this is infact a template email they send to people whose work is rejected from the get go. This is a far cry from your earlier comment of "Their response last time was they do not have enough publishing space and suggested that the paper should contribute significantly in increasing the knowledge and understanding of science" because they said no such thing.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection



Well we can clearly see that you do not comprehend anything outside your belief, as evident of that email you displayed for us shows. They are basically saying in a tactful PR sort of way that your paper lacks any sort of credence based on the lack of information you give them and they dont publish nonsense that doesnt add to the advancement of science and research.

You also cant understand my logic.....any theory (especially one that breaks the laws of physics) must be proven by the presenter not the audience (peer reviews) or at least have evidence strongly in favour of your theory which can be scrutinized by others (part of scientific method). Now as to make such a bold claim as to say it breaks the laws of physics, is to say you have an in depth knowledge of physics (its progressing theories) and are able to interpret the results you observe correctly and not rely on assumptions. Do you indeed have a degree or have earned any sort of credential in the field of physics, that would qualify you to make such statements about your device?

I think the majority can agree, through your own actions, your claims are to be questioned and you have the responsibility to change our minds through proper evidence just like every other scientist out there with a theory.

Edit-> glad to see im not the only one to interpret that email the same way

reply to post by boncho


I second this proposition.... OP Can you at-least post a video if you may that proves you Achieved Anti-Gravity and Confirmed it by utilizing mercury and a Tomato

I'm also very surprised this isn't in the hoax bin yet.

The fact that the OP posted that letter shows me that he probably believes in what he is talking about. Again, I am honestly not trying to offend with this remark, but perhaps some sort of personality disorder or something? I'm sure there are those more knowledgeable about that sort of thing than I.

But the e-mail he posted basically says they didn't think his work was real. Now if you were trying to prove to people that you actually invented AG tech, would you post an email where the actual scientific community is basically ignoring you? I know I wouldn't... someone sound of mind would know it would do nothing but damage the case they are trying to prove.

Savvy,

was the mercury tested before your experiment?

reply to post by john_bmth


Seems that your english and interpretation of the e mail is lacking , however you are entitled to interpret it any way you please. Get real.

Originally posted by MainLineThis
How is this thread not in the hoax bin by now? If this was a ufo claim it would have been. The OP has no clue what he is talking about (as demonstrated by his postings) do at least move this to the grey area.

I bet I check in on this "amazing" leap of knowledge in a few years and it went knowhere

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

And you have a clue and know what you are talking about. Is that it?

Originally posted by topherman420

They are basically saying in a tactful PR sort of way that your paper lacks any sort of credence based on the lack of information you give them and they dont publish nonsense that doesnt add to the advancement of science a results you observe correctly and not rely on assumptions.

Seems that your english and interpretation of the e mail is lacking , however you are entitled to interpret it any way you please. Get real.

Do you indeed have a degree or have earned any sort of credential in the field of physics, that would qualify you to make such statements about your device?

Did you read ' About the Author ' part on the link.
However this is quite rampant on ats, not reading the contents in the link.
Trigger happy eh.

I think the majority can agree, through your own actions, your claims are to be questioned and you have the responsibility to change our minds through proper evidence just like every other scientist out there with a theory.

Edit-> glad to see im not the only one to interpret that email the same way

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
reply to post by boncho

 

I second this proposition.... OP Can you at-least post a video if you may that proves you Achieved Anti-Gravity and Confirmed it by utilizing mercury and a Tomato

edit on 9-5-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

Are you kidding?
A mass/weight loss of 500 gms over 2 hrs run period, What the hell is the video gonna show?
Staring at the video for 2 hrs, you will rather count stars in the sky
For this reason no video was made, however photographs exist and I choose not to post them
as it will only lead to trolling by trigger happy atsers, who lack common sense let alone education of any conseqience in this reagard

Originally posted by James1982
I'm also very surprised this isn't in the hoax bin yet.

The fact that the OP posted that letter shows me that he probably believes in what he is talking about. Again, I am honestly not trying to offend with this remark, but perhaps some sort of personality disorder or something? I'm sure there are those more knowledgeable about that sort of thing than I.

But the e-mail he posted basically says they didn't think his work was real. Now if you were trying to prove to people that you actually invented AG tech, would you post an email where the actual scientific community is basically ignoring you? I know I wouldn't... someone sound of mind would know it would do nothing but damage the case they are trying to prove.

Personality disorder . Lol. Get real
You can interpret the e mail anyway you please, and I am not exactly trying to prove any case
and the Op is quite clear about the purpose of this thread

Originally posted by mrwiffler
Savvy,

was the mercury tested before your experiment?

Negative.
Effects of AG environment on substances were investigated to ascertain
their behaviour in a starship that navigates thru wormholes and get an inkling pf
the physics inside a wormhole and beyond.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


It doesnt take an english major to understand that email....apparently high school level English definitely is not your strong suit.
A quick look at their review process you can see what category your email falls into:

Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

Accept, with or without editorial revisions

Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached

Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission

Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

www.nature.com...

Also I think another key part of their ^OUTRIGHT REJECTION^ (ahem) would be because one of their author policies:

An inherent principle of publication is that others should be able to replicate and build upon the authors' published claims. Therefore, a condition of publication in a Nature journal is that authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without undue qualifications in material transfer agreements. Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission. Any restrictions must also be disclosed in the submitted manuscript, including details of how readers can obtain materials and information. If materials are to be distributed by a for-profit company, this must be stated in the paper.

www.nature.com...

They actually bold the sentence "authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without undue qualifications in material transfer agreements".....must be important if they bold it.

So, in short they couldn't even interpret the drivel you sent them to even warrant further consideration (re read the first quote to a refresher why).

Originally posted by topherman420
So, in short they couldn't even interpret the drivel you sent them to even warrant further consideration

I'm quite aware of Nature policies.
Drivel. Lol. Your english is seriously lacking. Suggest you re-read the e mail

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


(rereads email upon request)

Yep its a rejection letter....but lets make this a simpler exercise for you by using something we both apparently understand which is their policies and their breakdown of a reviewers final decision:

Accept, with or without editorial revisions - they didnt accept your theory or else they would of said they "accepted" it

Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached-they didnt invite you to anything or address specific concerns (other then the fact it doesn't show anything to be of value to their journal publishing)

Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission - yes they did reject but once again no indication was made for a resubmission or for any further work to be done.

Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems - since there was no invitation to further work on something they thought had merit, we can only conclude the main intention of the letter was simply rejection. And to soften the blow they add in a very PR "I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion" Aww how sweet of them to spare your feelings, but apparently its not helping to sugar coat it either.

Now short of people using flash cards and keeping words to a single syllable, im not sure how you can interpret this in any other regard.
I really wish that you were a troll because I cant comprehend this delusion.


Sorry you seem to be unfamiliar with drivel, let me clarify: www.merriam-webster.com...