The point of my insistent questioning about whether or not you've ever submitted an article for peer review is that the criticism you've received here is NOTHING compared to what reviewers for a journal will do.

You can look in all my publications and you will see it never happend what you discribe - in the contrary, but judge yourself, call the editors. You will hear for instance that I had over 100 positive resonance - a TV broadcast was choosen the best of the year etc.

 

http://www.wolfhartindustries.com/veroef.htm

 

Throwing a hissy fit and accusing people of being dictators for critiquing your work wins you negative points. If you can't handle it, science isn't for you.

I never did this.

I tell you a secret. I am my greatest enemy by myself. I (and others) tried since 1966 to destroy this theory. Nobody succeded.

Now my predictions are observed. That's the only thing what counts.

If all the admins tolerate vicious lies in this forum it is a dictatorship. Don't confuse the doer with the victim.

You can look in all my publications and you will see it never happend what you discribe - in the contrary, but judge yourself, call the editors.

 

Congratulations on being the only scientist I've ever heard of who has never had a paper or a grant rejected.

Congratulations on being the only scientist I've ever heard of who has never had a paper or a grant rejected.

 

except the last one - and this, because the leading physicists don’t dare to say anything – either negative or positive things to my theory.

Edited April 19, 201312 yr by Wolfhart Willimczik

I am sick and can't do what I want...

This one sentence sums up nicely the source of your struggles here at SFN.

and why are you in conflict with me and all other physicist, which made observations in this matter.

 

What? You claimed that nobody has ever explained metastable states before. How can I be in disagreement with all of the physicists who are familiar with them?

 

 

 

What? You claimed that nobody has ever explained metastable states before. How can I be in disagreement with all of the physicists who are familiar with them?

 

 

Please answer my questions first. They are a long time due.

You deny everything I wrote, but you presented a vicious lie as "Evidence" without any backup.

it.

No, that won't do at all.

I asked you to explain what you were referring to. You didn't.

I'm asking again.

You said "You looked in Google and you found many sources, which are all in line with my new theory – one even word for word!

There was only one what said no with an older date - and you copied only this line. - and you claim this is realyty. You put the world upside down!

To suppress 99% of scientific statements is not a lie? Supporting this is not dictatorship?"

 

Please clarify exactly what you are referring to.

.

What do you claim I looked for in Google and ignored the results?

No, that won't do at all.

I asked you to explain what you were referring to. You didn't.

I'm asking again.

You said "You looked in Google and you found many sources, which are all in line with my new theory – one even word for word!

There was only one what said no with an older date - and you copied only this line. - and you claim this is realyty. You put the world upside down!

To suppress 99% of scientific statements is not a lie? Supporting this is not dictatorship?"

 

Please clarify exactly what you are referring to.

.

What do you claim I looked for in Google and ignored the results?

first prove your claim why my theory is wrong.

first prove your claim why my theory is wrong.

 

!

Moderator Note

This isn't even the thread for your theory. And it hasn't been a productive thread for quite some time. Closed.