Some of my Bad experiences havebeen with
Even though the Cornell arXiv blacklisted me in 2002, in 2003 and2004 I was able to put on the web T-QuarkMass and Hyperfinite II1 von Neumann factor and WMAP ratiocalculations as EXT-2003-087 andEXT-2004-013 on CERNCDS
.Many thanks to CERN CDS,because blacklisting had prevented me from posting that revisedversion on the Cornell arXiv. Here isan 825 kb file including some e-mail messages related to thematter.
If I don't go to the Northern District of New York, BinghamtonDivision, to file a new suitagainst the Cornell Defendants, I may just giveup and go off theweb, leaving my web site up as it is now, as long asinnerx lets it stay as a memorial.
As of now, 13 August 2003:
Carlos Castro, who is also blacklisted, is contacting lawyers in California who might be able to help; andafter seeing a 2 July 2003 article by Jim Galloway in the Atlanta, Georgia, AJC that said
"... former Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday [1 July 2003] opened a small law office ... With his son-in-law, John Salter, 27, Barnes has set up a temporary office on the Marietta Square. His daughter, Allison Barnes Salter, an assistant solicitor for Cobb County, will join the firm Sept. 1. All three are University of Georgia law school graduates. Barnes said he intended to keep the Barnes Law Group small, with no more than 10 attorneys. The firm will specialize in consumer actions, including predatory lending and negligence cases. The former governor also plans to resume his specialty, First Amendment cases. ...".I contacted the new firm on Marietta Square about helping with my First Amendment suit against Cornell et al. On Tuesday, 15 July 2003, I received a letter that confirmed what a receptionist at their office had verbally told me the day before: "... Although we have no opinion as to the validity or non-validity of your claims, this matter is not the type of litigation we are accepting into our firm at this time. ...".
On 3 August 2003, I had written a newpaper, with new ideas extending the last paper (physics/0207095)that I had been allowed to post on the arXiv, and I noticed thatarXiv had revised some of its procedures relative to authorregistration, so I sent an e-mail to register-query@arXiv.orgrequesting that I be registered as an author, effectively ending mybeing blacklisted. On the following day, register-query@arXiv.orgreplied, stating "... The registration interface has changed, theunderlying policies have not. ...", thus again refusing to registerme and continuing my blacklisting.
Life is not all bad - there are some Goodexperiences.
My bad experience with physics journal refereeing was whenI tried to get my F4 model publishedin Nuclear Physics B, and then in Mod. Phys. Lett. and Int. Jour.Mod. Phys. (Singapore). This was around 1991, in the same generaltime frame that my attempts to contribute papers to the APS DPF 1990meeting at Houston (Rice) and to the APS DPF 1992 meeting at Fermilabwere rejected.
The reason that I submitted the papers to European and Asianjournals was that the USA journals Phys. Rev. and Phys. Rev. Lett.required substantial page charges for publication, and I had noinstitutional backing to pay such page charges.
After 3 referees in Nuc. Phys. B, none of whom gave specificcriticism ( other than to say the Coleman-Mandulatheorem was violated by the F4 model - In fact, the F4 model isspecifically designed so that the Coleman-Mandula theorem does notapply, so that referee obviously did not even understand whateverpart of the F4 paper he read ), the paper was rejected by Nuc.Phys. B. An editor of Nuclear Physics B told me that it was notpossible for him to find a referee who would put in the time toread/understand such a large paper with many non-standard facets. Idon't have any hard feelings toward Nuclear Physics B, because theeditor was honestly telling me that he couldn't find a willingcompetent referee, and it is a fact that the paper is big and noteasy to read.
Then, trying to make it easier for referees, I broke up the largemany-faceted paper into 6 or 7 smaller papers and submitted them tothe Singapore journal Mod. Phys. Lett.
I followed their advice, and combined them into one big paper,which I submitted to their sister journal Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.
When I then complained to the editors in Singapore that thecombination had been done at their request, they just flatly rejectedthe paper, without ever giving me any specific reason.
not to mention further publications. As PeterWoit said in a 24 October 2002 post to thesci.physics.research thread Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokalhoax?
largely because there is no way to consistently impose standardsgiven what has happened in particle theory over the last twentyyears. ...".
Here are some excerpts from that thread:
==================================================================... From: John Baez (baez@galaxy.ucr.edu)... We all laughed when Alan Sokal wrote a deliberately sillypaper entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards aTransformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", and managedto get it accepted by a refereed journal of social and culturalstudies, Social Text.But now I hear that two brothers have managed to publish 3meaningless papers in physics journals as a hoax - and evenget Ph.D. degrees in physics from Bourgogne University inthe process! The theses are available in PDF format online,at least for now:Igor BogdanovETAT TOPOLOGIQUE DE L'ESPACE TEMPS A ECHELLE 0http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/15/03/index_fr.htmlGrichka BogdanovFLUCTUATIONS QUANTIQUES DE LA SIGNATURE DE LA METRIQUE A L'ECHELLE DE PLANCK(Quantum fluctuations of the signature of the metric at the Planck scale)http://tel.ccsd.cnrs.fr/documents/archives0/00/00/15/02/index_fr.htmlThey have also published at least four papers based on theirtheses:Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime,Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372.Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,Spacetime Metric and the KMS Condition at the Planck Scale,Annals of Physics, 295 (2002), 90-97.Grichka Bogdanov and Igor Bogdanov,KMS space-time at the Planck scale,Nuovo Cimento, 117B (2002) 417-424.Igor Bogdanov,Topological origin of inertia,Czechoslovak Journal of Physics, 51 (2001), 1153-1236.... and now I see there is possibly one more:Igor Bogdanov,KMS state of the spacetime at the Planck scale,Chinese J. of Phys. (2002)....======================================================================... From: Greg Kuperberg (greg@conifold.math.ucdavis.edu)... This should be 296 (2002), no. 1, 90-97. But yes, the paper is bullshit.[Moderator's note: Let's try to keep things polite. -TB]I hope to see one major difference between the aftermath of thiscase and Sokal. No one should criticize the Bogdanovs for doingthis. This is a bitter pill that these journals and this universitymust richly deserve....======================================================================... From: Peter Woit (woit@cpw.math.columbia.edu)... Looking at these papers more carefully,three of them are nearly identical and all three are more orless an extract of the first one (the Classicaland Quantum Gravity article).You may be able to convince yourself that "spacetime must beconsidered as being subject to the KMS condition at the Planck scale"is an intelligible scientific idea worthy of publication,but the editors and referees at Nuovo Cimento, Annals of Physics and theChinese Journal of Physics have a lot of explaining to do.Similarly for Igor Bogdanoff's thesis examiners,who don't seem to have noticed that much of his thesis wasseveral identical articles stapled together....... I just heard from a physicist at NYU, who heard about this froma colleague who was in contact with a New York Times reporterwho is looking into this. The "Bogdanoff" brothers have degreesin semiology, their names and most else about them seems to bea put-on (they are French, not Russian). For a recent profile of them(in French) seehttp://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=58973and for something about their TV show, seehttp://www.france2.fr/semiStatic/61-NIL-NIL-173054.htmlTheir theses and papers are clearly nonsense and the fact that they'vemanaged to get these things published and get doctoral degrees shouldlead to a scandal of some sort. Whether they think of what they doas real science or are doing this as a complete fraud a la Sokal iscertainly an interesting question.I've off and on thought about trying to publish a hoax paper on stringtheory, but gave up on the idea, partly because while it seemedeminently doable to make up some nonsense about string theoryand get it past a referee, it's not clear what the distinguishingcharacteristic of my nonsense would be. Would it be thatI didn't believe it (this probably is not unheard of among peoplewho write string theory papers)? Would it be that the paper wasinconsistent and had nothing to do with the real world (thatcharacterizes most of hep-th)?.Refereeing in this field has clearly become a complete joke,largely because there is no way to consistently impose standardsgiven what has happened in particle theory over the last twentyyears. The Sokal hoax had a very salutary effect on the"science studies" people, perhaps this one will have a similareffect here....======================================================================... From: Aaron Bergman (abergman@princeton.edu)... I took a look at this one:<http://www.iop.org/EJ/S/3/492/abstract/0264-9381/18/21/301/>and the referee clearly didn't even glance at it. I particularly like:> Definition 1.2: A theory if topological if (the Lagrangian L being> non-trivial) it does not depend on L.I also like the part where they put a Tr(-1)^n in the path integral.Given that a number of terms are used incorrectly on the first fewpages, this seems to be quite an indictment of the refereeing process.I can't say I'm completely surprised that something like this couldhappen. I'm surprised that they got CQG, though....=======================================================================... From: John Baez (baez@galaxy.ucr.edu)... A New York Times reporter was planning to do a story on this,but he spoke with one of the Bogdanovs, who huffily denied thatit was a hoax. Apparently the reporter decided to drop it. Hesaid he could write a story about a hoax, but not about some papersthat are so silly people *think* they are hoax. :-)Of course, not everyone committing a hoax instantly admitsto committing a hoax when you ask them!Also, the Bogdanovs are not only science fiction writers, butTV personalities (or ex-TV personalities?) in France. Itseems a bit odd to me that two such people would suddenlytake time off from their careers to get physics PhDs andpublish a bunch of laughably incoherent physics papersunless they were "up to something". Am I being too suspicious?Could they be merely incompetent? I was hoping for something abit more original.>>So, it's possible that instead of being scared to look foolish,>>the people who got duped were simply too busy to actually read>>what they were supposed to be reading.>If true, some anonymous reviewers will certainly look terribly>foolish. I suppose the whole field will look foolish.They (or we? - but it's not *my* fault) should feel foolishregardless of whether it's a hoax or not, because the papersare a bunch of baloney.It's also amusing that their Annals of Physics paper is almostidentical to their Nuovo Cimento paper. Of course, this cheapway of padding one's resume is nothing new. As someone once putit: "It'd be plagiarism if it wasn't me who wrote it in the firstplace".Fans of topological field theory will like this line in theirpaper "Topological Field Theory of the Initial Singularity": Now, the topological field theory (for D = 4) is established when the Hamiltonian (or the Lagrangian) of the system is H = 0, such as the theory is independent of the underlying metric. We propose to extend this definition, stating that a theory can also be topological if it does not depend on the Hamiltonian H (or the Lagrangian L) of the system.Of course, this is like saying the theory doesn't depend onthe theory! They then give this as an official numbered "Definition"in their paper, in solemn mathematical style.==========================================================================... From: Dirk Bruere (dirk@neopax.com)... I assume a number of people here have received email from Drs Bogdanovclaiming this is no hoax, so I will not quote it in full.However, there is a very interesting and telling comment: "This morning told that they were frauds everyone was laughing at how obvious it is. This afternoon, told they are real professors and that this is not a fraud, everyone here says, well, maybe it is real stuff".Is it really the case that ... only a few people can distinguish between legitimate theory and blatant bullshit? ...". ==========================================================================
There, the Bogdanov brothers are quoted as saying:
"... apparently no one has really read norunderstood our papers as shown by this email from Harvard that wasfwd to us :
"... Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:10:29 -0400 From: Laurent Freidel < ...@perimeterinstitute.ca>... Subject: RE: Hoax: Alan Sokol phenomenon reversed (fwd)" What is going on??? guys?? the claim is now that the Bogdanoff brothers are not a fraud and that they not only won Phd's with these papers that no one can understand, that yesterday everyone was convinced were fraudulent, they won appointment as professors to a french university, Bourgogne!!! So no one in the string group at harvard can tell if these papers are real or fraudulent. This morning told that they were frauds everyone was laughing at how obvious it is. This afternoon, told they are real professors and that this is not a fraud, everyone here says, well, maybe it is real stuff".
...".
Here is an 825 kb file includingsome e-mail messages related to the matter.
As of now, 13 August 2003:
Carlos Castro, who is also blacklisted, is contacting lawyers in California who might be able to help; andafter seeing a 2 July 2003 article by Jim Galloway in the Atlanta, Georgia, AJC that said
"... former Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday [1 July 2003] opened a small law office ... With his son-in-law, John Salter, 27, Barnes has set up a temporary office on the Marietta Square. His daughter, Allison Barnes Salter, an assistant solicitor for Cobb County, will join the firm Sept. 1. All three are University of Georgia law school graduates. Barnes said he intended to keep the Barnes Law Group small, with no more than 10 attorneys. The firm will specialize in consumer actions, including predatory lending and negligence cases. The former governor also plans to resume his specialty, First Amendment cases. ...".I contacted the new firm on Marietta Square about helping with my First Amendment suit against Cornell et al. On Tuesday, 15 July 2003, I received a letter that confirmed what a receptionist at their office had verbally told me the day before: "... Although we have no opinion as to the validity or non-validity of your claims, this matter is not the type of litigation we are accepting into our firm at this time. ...".
On 3 August 2003, I had written a newpaper, with new ideas extending the last paper (physics/0207095)that I had been allowed to post on the arXiv, and I noticed thatarXiv had revised some of its procedures relative to authorregistration, so I sent an e-mail to register-query@arXiv.orgrequesting that I be registered as an author, effectively ending mybeing blacklisted. On the following day, register-query@arXiv.orgreplied, stating "... The registration interface has changed, theunderlying policies have not. ...", thus again refusing to registerme and continuing my blacklisting.
Here is a copy of my 10 August 2002letter:
Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr. attorney at lawP. O. Box 370, Cartersville, Georgia 30120(770) 382-5875e-mail: tsmith@innerx.net WWW URL: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/ 10 August 2002Express Mail No. *EU256905334US*Re: e-print archive registration requestCU Library Gateway - Re: arXiv.org e-print archives201 Olin LibraryCornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853Enclosed is a copy of my e-mail message to you and to register-query@arxiv.org sent 10 August 2002, which message is hereby incorporated herein by reference.Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr.
Here is a copy of the e-mail message that was enclosed:
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.netX-Sender: tsmith@pop3.innerx.net (Unverified)Mime-Version: 1.0Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:49:49 -0400To: register-query@arXiv.orgFrom: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>Subject: request for registrationCc: tsmith@innerx.net, LIBGATEWAY-L@cornell.edu As you can tell by checking correspondence files over July and August 2002,I have had complications with respect to attempts to putpapers on the e-print archives. Eventually my put ofhttp://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0207095was accepted, as was my replacement to correct some materialabout the Kobayashi-maskawa phase. However, my attempt to put my paper TS-QM03-1 entitledPenrose-Hameroff Quantum Tubulin Electrons,Chiao Gravity Antennas, and Mead Resonancewas rejected, and even though I sought reconsideration,and as far as I know it still stands rejected. In order to resolve the matter of my status with clarity,and to avoid future complications and perhaps toexpedite your reconsideration of my paper TS-QM03-1I am sending this my request that I be registered asan author on the e-print archives. I did attempt to do so, in connection with my attemptto put my paper TS-QM03-1, but I received a rejection replythat said, in part: "... Your register request has been deferred.Ordinarily we require an appropriate institutional affiliation... please use ... your university account.If you are trying to register from an e-mail account witha research employer that officially sponsors your work ...If you have no suitable institutional affiliation,then please find someone with such an affiliation,and with expertise in the relevant subject matter,to sponsor your activities. ...". I do have a university e-mail account which isfdtsmith@mail.alumni.princeton.edu (In fact one reason that I obtained it in July 2002 was to try to compy with your request that I "use ... [my] university account".)andI did use it in my attempt to put up my paper TS-QM03-1butsince that attempt was rejected,it must be that for some reason you do not consider itto be a "university account".I hereby request that you state your position with respectto that university account clearly and explicitly. I am self-employed, and do not have a third party "research employer". I do not understand exactly what you mean when you saythat I should "find" "someone with such an affiliation"who is "with expertise in the relevant subject matter"to "sponsor [my] activities". More particularly: Exactly what would "someone" have to do to "sponsor [my] activities" ? Exactly how much "expertise" would that "someone" have to have with respect to each paper that I might want to put on the e-print archives ? For instance, would that require such a "someone" to read in detail, understand, and effectively referee each such paper ? Exactly what is "such an affiliation" ? For instance, would a professorship at an accredited physics department in a USA university be sufficient, or might there be other and/or further requirements ? Exactly what would be involved in my effort to "find" such a a "someone" ? Especially, would I be required to pay such a "someone" for time and effort expended to "sponsor [my] activities" ? I think that my history of putting papers on the e-print archivesis relevant, so here it is: When I had the e-mail account gt0109e@prism.gatech.edu at Georgia Tech,I put up the following papers from Georgia Tech: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9301210 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9302008 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9302030 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9306011 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9402003 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9403007 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9501252 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9503009 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9503015 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9512438 After I no longer had a Georgia Tech e-mail account,I had for a time the account fsmith@pegasus.cau.edu at CTSPSat Clark Atlanta University, from which I put up the following papers: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9708379 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9806023 http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9908205 After the CTSPS - Clark Atlanta University account ceased to beused regularly by me, I had an e-mail discussion with the peopleat xxx.lanl.gov which resulted in their telling me:> ------------------------------------------------->> Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net> Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 07:52:32 -0600> From: www-admin@xxx.lanl.gov (www admin for xxx.lanl.gov)> To: tsmith@innerx.net> Subject: RE: register> Cc: www-admin@xxx.lanl.gov>> > ould you please tell me why my request to register as> > an author at gen-ph@xxx.lanl.gov was not accepted ?>> No registration is required. Just submit by e-mail> To: gen-ph@xxx.lanl.gov> Subject: put> when you have a new submission to make.>> -------------------------------------------------- That arrangement, suggested by the people at xxx.lanl.gov,was at that time satisfactory with meand pursuant to it I put up the following papers: http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0006041 http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0102042 That brings my history to the time of the complicationsthat I have encountered during July and August 2002. Since the complications that I have encountered duringJuly and August 2002 involve whatever policy that you may havewith respect to registration,andsince your web page athttp://arXiv.org/states in part "... $This archive is based upon activitiessupported by the U.S. National Science Foundationunder Agreement No. 0132355 (7/01-6/04) with Cornell University.$$ ...". I hereby formally request to be registered as an authoron the e-print archives and that I be givenan author username and password that is as effectiveas are most such author usernames and passwords,andI also hereby formally request that you send to me acomplete statement of any policy or policies that youmay have with respect to registration, as well as copiesof all documentation in your posession or control (includingelectronic documentation) relative to such policy or policiesand the formulation of such policy or policies.I further formally request that you preserve all such documentationfor at least the balance of the calendar year 2002, and perhapslonger if circumstances warrant. Since the web page athttp://campusgw.library.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/manntom2.cgi?section=networked&URL=gateway.htmllists the CU Library Gateway e-Reference Collection as including"... arXiv.org e-print archive ..."I am sending a copy of this messaage to LIBGATEWAY-L@cornell.eduand a paper printout copy of this message by US mail addressed to: CU Library Gateway Re: arXiv.org e-print archive201 OlinLibraryCornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853 Frank D. (Tony) Smith, Jr. 10 August 2002
On 8 September 2002 I received arejection message from register-query@arXiv.org (register-query forarXiv.org) that said:
"... Alumni addresses do not count as current affiliation. ...Moreoverthe nature of your former use of institional e-mail accounts is unclear....This is no longer xxx.lanl.gov, so the history is not strictly relevant....There is no evidence that any of these [papers that I had put upsince 1993] has been considered peer-reviewable by a conventional journal... The policy here is to restrict submissions to those that wouldbe considered peer-reviewable by conventional journals. That is what sponsorship by someone with expertise in the subject mattermeans in your case, without a suitable institutional sponsorship foryour activities.Do not send further messages to any address other than this one.Any message sent to any other address will be put at the bottomof the queue, and take that much longer to receive response. ...".
On 10 September 2002 I made some efforts toobtain a sponsor for me to become a registered author on the e-printarchive. I went to Georgia Tech and talked to my friend and formerteacher, professor DavidFinkelstein, but he was not enthusiastic, saying that he did notunderstand all the aspects of my D4-D5-E6-E7-E8VoDou Physics model. He did not directly say "No.", saying thathe would think about it, but I could tell that he really did not wantto get involved in my work to the extent of being a sponsor. I thenhad another idea, which I proposed by e-mail to Stuart Hameroff.Early on 11 September 2002 I received his reply, which was, with mymessage quoted below it:
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.netDate: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:39:46 -0700From: hameroff@email.arizona.eduSubject: RE: e-print archive authorshipTo: "Tony Smith" <tsmith@innerx.net>MIME-Version: 1.0User-Agent: UofA WebmailX-Originating-IP: 195.101.217.200 Dear Tony Roger is so busy that I hesitate to contact him about anything, includingour collaboration. I can almost assure you that he would not be interested,with no aspersions on your work. There must be someone you know who would do it. Good luck Stuart >-- Original Message -->Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:15:39 -0400>To: hameroff@email.arizona.edu>From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>>Subject: e-print archive authorship>Cc: tsmith@innerx.net>>>As you recommeded to me in e-mail messages back around 8 August 2002,>I have been in discussion with arXiv.org to try to get them to>register me as an author and to put up my paper that I have contributed>to Quantum Mind 2003. As I indicated in an earlier message to you,>I have put a pdf version of the paper on the web at>http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/QM03.pdf>>After about a month or so, I have received a message from>register-query@arXiv.org>that rejected my attempt to be registered as an author and>to put up that paper on the gen-ph e-print archive.>>The rejection message said, in part:>"... The policy here is to restrict submissions to those that would>be considered peer-reviewable by conventional journals.>That is what sponsorship by someone with expertise in the subject matter>means in your case, without a suitable institutional sponsorship for>your activities. ...".>Therefore,>it seems to me that to be registered as an author under the>rules of arXiv.org as it is now being administered>by Cornell, which rules seem to be different from the rules>when xxx.lanl.gov at Los Alamos was administering the archive,>the change having taken place within the past year,>I must find a respected physicist at a respected university>who will review my body of work (I have somewhat over a dozen>papers that were put on the archive under Los Alamos administration)>and>then certify to the Cornell administrators at register-query@arXiv.org>that they will sponsor my activities, including being an author>on the archive.>>I am uncertain as to how I should proceed.>Today I discussed the possibility of sponsorship with>my former teacher, David Finkelstein, but, although he>said that he would think about it, it was clear to me>that he was uncomfortable with sponsoring me, in part>because, as he said, he does not fully understand my work.>>A possible approach that came to my mind is that,>since the paper in question is a quantum consciousness paper,>and since it is based on the work of you and Roger Penrose,>and since you are technically a M.D. instead of a physicist,>that Roger Penrose might be a logical person to evaluate my work.>>On the one hand, I recognize that Roger Penrose has his own>work to do and is very likely too busy to study my work,>but>on the other hand, he is at Oxford where there are many highly>intelligent doctoral students and post-docs,>so>I thought that perhaps he could ask a student or post-doc to>look at my body of work and make an evaluation that he could>use in making a determination of my fitness to be an author>on the e-print archive.>>Instead of reviewing all my papers (over a dozen),>I suggest that the most recent one on particle physics might>give a reviewing student or post-doc enough information to evaluate>my work. That paper is at>http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0207095>and>I think that it and my consciousness paper taken together>constitute a fairly representative sample of my work.>>If you think that might be a good idea, please feel free to>forward this message to Roger Penrose along with any comments>that you might have.>>Also, if Roger Penrose were to agree to that proposal,>please let him know that I would be willing to go to>Oxford at my expense at some mutually agreeable date>to confer with any student or post-doc who might find>discussion with me helpful in making such an evaluation.>>Whether or not you agree with the above idea,>I thank you very much for your work and ideas,>and I look forward to seeing you in March 2003.>>Thank you.>>Tony Smith 10 September 2002>>>>>
Unfortunately, even after a lot of serious thought, I cannotthink of anyone I "... know who would do it. ...".
After a friend of mine asked the Cornelle-print archives some questions about my situation, I received copiesof some of the statements of the Cornell e-print archives concerningme, and I then sent an e-mail message to register-query@arXiv.orgthat said:
"... Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:32:55 -0400To: register-query@arXiv.orgFrom: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>Subject: RE: arXiv.org policy...... Possibly in accord with your request that he "... copyor retransmit messages for informational purposes. ..."...[a friend of mine]... has forwarded to me commentsby you, register-query for arXiv.org, that concern me. --------------------------------------------------- You say that I am in "... a large pool here -- typically flagged by reader complaints -- encouraged to find alternate outlets. ...". Please tell me who has complained about me,and exactly what they have said about me,andplease give me a reasonable opportunity to reply to any such complaints. --------------------------------------------------- With respect to my posts on the e-print archives since 1993,you demand specification of "... in what journal "any [of my paperson the e-print archive]" have been published. ...". I have NEVER submitted ANY of my papers that are on the e-printarchive to ANY journal,thereforeit is IMPOSSIBLE to determine how they might have been treated.Not only is it impossible for me to show that they mighthave been reviewed favorably,it is also impossible for you (or anyone else) to show thatthey might have been reviewed unfavorably,because no such articles have been submitted. The reasons that I have not submitted those papers for publicationinclude:1 - I am self-employed, and do not need citations of publicationsfor grants or tenure;2 - I have seen some evidence of arbitrariness in refereeingprocesses, and do not wish to get involved in such processes ifI do not have to do so, which I do not because of (1).3 - Even an optimal journal refereeing and publication processresults in substantial time delay in publication, compared tothe nearly instantaneous posting of papers on the e-print archives;4 - Most journals require assignment of copyright, which I findobjectionable if I can avoid it, and I can avoid it by postingon the e-print archives;5 - My experience as a regular reader of the e-print archivesfor many years indicates to me that archived e-prints get a farwider readership than ANY journal. I have made no secret of the fact that I have not submittedany of my archived papers to any journal, and lack of submissionhas NOT been a problem for ANY of the over a dozen papers thathave been posted by me to the e-print archive from 1993 to July 2002. Do you now require that ALL papers posted to the e-print archivebe submitted to refereed journals for publication? What about contributions to conferences that are not submittedto journals?In that connection, I note that the paper that you rejectedin August 2002 when I attempted to post it has in fact beencontributed to a conference, which is Quantum-Mind 2003at the University of Arizona, which conference has web site at http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/quantum-mind2/ ".
I have not (as of 4 December 2002) receivedany reply from Cornell. It makes me sad to realize that:
In my opinion, the real reason thatCornell has blacklisted me is that Paul Ginsparg dislikes me becausein the year 2000 I supported a friend of mine, Carlos Castro of ClarkAtlanta University, in a controversy involving the e-print archives,then being administered by Los Alamos. Hereis a 317 kb file including some e-mail messages related to thatcontroversy. Paul Ginsparg's state of mind is evidenced by thefollowing statement that he made in 2000:
Paul Ginsparg stated: "... if clark university will insist on this, then we will cease to regard clark university as a responsible accredited institution. ...".By that statement, Paul Ginsparg threatened to cut off archive authorship of everybody at Clark Atlanta University unless Clark Atlanta University stopped supporting Carlos Castro.
The next year, 2001, PaulGinsparg was made a Professor of Physics at Cornell University.According to an e-print archive webpage:
According to aSeptember 2001 article in Physics Today by Toni Feder:
"... The electronic preprint server that revolutionized communication among physicists moved in late summer from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) to Cornell University, along with its creator, string theorist Paul Ginsparg, who has taken a joint position in physics and computer information science. ... Martin Blume, editor of the American Physical Society (APS) journals ... says ... "I won't say Paul was unappreciated at Los Alamos, but what he did was peripheral, whereas now he'll be at the center of things." ... Ginsparg ... says ... "At a weapons lab, a project like this has never been central to the overall mission," says Ginsparg, adding that "middle managerial pettiness and small-mindedness" were "pertinent" to his decision to leave. ... Cornell librarian Sarah Thomas ... says ... "The archive is a highly successful model of how a community looks at research in its field. It's become very timely, and very democratic. ...".
In light of being blacklisted by Cornell, I find it quite ironicthat Cornell had been bragging about the e-print archives being "verydemocratic".
My opinion that Cornell did not blacklist me because I don'tsubmit papers to refereed journals is supported by something thatPaul Ginsparg wroteon 19 April 1995: "... Some measure of the success of e-printarchives is given, first, by widespread testaments fromusers that they find it an indispensable research tool -effectively eliminating their reliance on conventional print journals(and some report no longer submitting to journals, eitherbecause they have unconsciously forgotten, since the information isalready communicated, or because they have consciously chosen notto deal with a tedious and seemingly unnecessary process...".
I find Cornell's statement "... The policy here is to restrict submissions to those that would be considered peer-reviewable by conventional journals. ..." to be almost hilariously ridiculous, in light of the Bogdanov publications in Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (2001), 4341-4372 and Annals of Physics, 296 (2002), 90-97. As Peter Woit said in a 24 October 2002 post to the sci.physics.research thread Physics bitten by reverse Alan Sokal hoax?
largely because there is no way to consistently impose standards given what has happened in particle theory over the last twenty years. ...".
Also, my use of a .net e-mail address does not seem to me to be aconsistent reason for Cornell to blacklist me, because, according toan e-print archive webpage: "... Distribution according to e-mail domain of submittingauthor of all 134945 submissions received during the five year period1 Jan 97 through 31 Dec 01 ...[was]...
so that the total number of .net submissions is more than tentimes greater than the number of my .net submissions.
It is interesting to me that at aboutthe same time that Cornell was blacklisting me, Ginsparg receivedwhat is commonly called a MacArthur Genius Award. According to a 25September 2002 AP article in TheNew York Times: "... The list of 24 fellows announced Wednesdayby the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Each willreceive $500,000 over five years: ... Paul Ginsparg, 46,Ithaca, N.Y.; professor of physics and computing and informationscience at Cornell University who created a computer-based system forphysicists and other scientists to share their research results....".
Despite my unhappiness at being blacklisted by Cornell, I thinkthat, not only should Ginsparg have won a MacArthur award, butthat:
An earlier and larger award would have been (in my opinion) muchcloser to theintent of the MacArthurs:
"... that money should be set aside to allow truly creative individuals the free time to be alone and think. ... Recipients should be left alone without the annoyances and distractions imposed by grant applications, reviewing committees, and pressure to publish ...".
I think that the way the MacArthur awards are implemented, beinggiven by a committee as rewards for prior work and being limited tofive years, is a sad distortion of the true intent of John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur.
For instance, aJanuary 1996 capitalresearch.org web article by Martin MorseWooster says:
"... The MacArthur Fellows Program is a relatively small part of ... the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur ... Foundation's activities ... When the first MacArthur Fellows were announced in 1981 ... The New Republic's Michael Kinsley ... noted ... "Not one of the first MacArthur fellows is suffering from lack of recognition for his or her talents ... What's more, not one really faces financial obstacles in exercising his or her creativity. They are already doing whatever it is the MacArthur Foundation admires them for doing; many are already doing quite well at it, and presumably they will keep on doing it, unless this windfall encourages them to stop." Moreover, Kinsley argued, the MacArthur Fellows program contradicted the "rugged individualism" inherent in the life of John D. MacArthur, a heroic entrepreneur who began his career penniless and died a billionaire, never receiving a grant from anyone. ... the MacArthur Fellows program has changed remarkably little between 1981 and today. ...... Within a few weeks after John D. MacArthur's death in 1978, ... son J. Roderick "Rod" MacArthur ... had perfected the idea of the MacArthur Fellowships and had recommended that they be the primary purpose of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. ... the MacArthur Foundation did resist two of [Rod] MacArthur's ideas, awarding lifetime fellowships and tying the list of recipients to a list of world problems the foundation wanted to solve. ...
... One-third of MacArthur recipients are over age 50, and when Roy Hoopes interviewed some of them for Modern Maturity, he found that the major effect of the MacArthurs was to act as a credential that generated more income from lecture fees and other assignments. Some of the people Hoopes interviewed regretted that they did not receive the award when they were younger and hungrier. ...".
A more timely and generous MacArthur award would have been helpfulto Ginsparg and the e-print archives in their earlier years. AsGinsparg wrote on 19April 1995: "... hep-th@xxx.lanl.gov, the e-mail address for thefirst of a series of automated archives for electronic communicationof research information, went on-line starting in August, 1991. ...The system originally ran as a background job on a small Unixworkstation (a 25 MHz NeXTstation with a 68040 processor purchasedfor roughly $5k in 1991) which was primarily used for other purposesby another member of my research group, and placed no noticeabledrain on cpu resources. The system has since been moved to an HP9000/735 that sits exiled on the floor under a table in a corner. ...While it long remained a spare-time project with little financial orlogistical support, as of 1 Mar 1995 it is supported by the U.S.National Science Foundation under Agreement No. 9413208. ...".
Being frustrated by Cornell's refusal to discuss my situation in areasonable manner, I consider the possibility of
To file such a suit, I looked for a law firm with offices in bothAtlanta (in my home state of Georgia) and in New York (Cornell's homestate). The first firm I contacted was King and Spalding. I told themthat I was willing to pay going-rate legal fees, and they began tocheck whether or not there would be any conflict.
My hope was that the New York office of thefirm would contact Cornell's legal department and show them theproposed suit, which if filed publicly in New York would be hard forNew York media to ignore. Then hopefully Cornell legal would haverealized the difficulty of defending individual arbitrariness in thematter, and instructed the Cornell powers-that-be that it would be inthe best interest of Cornell (and in fact of Ginsparg) to carryout their own declared policy of openauthorship.
A few days after my initial contact, King and Spalding said thattheir New York office had conflicts with taking my suit againstCornell.
I then contacted Holland and Knight, another firm with bothAtlanta and New York offices. After checking with their New Yorkoffice, they also said that conflicts prevented them from taking mycase. After that, I called Alston and Bird (yet another firm withboth Atlanta and New York offices), but they did not want to take mycase.
My discussion with Holland and Knight was very helpful to me inunderstanding the reason for my inability to find a suitable law firmto take my case. It became clear to me that, from the point of viewof a New York law office:
I now believe that it is highly unlikely that I will be able toretain a large establishment law firm to take my case againstCornell. If Cornell could remove any such suit to the State of NewYork, then, since I think that the New York judicial system is alsolikely to be unfavorably disposed to a suit against Cornell by a mereindividual such as me, I believe that a large establishment law firmwould probably be necessary to get serious attention of Cornell'slawyers and a just result.
However,
According to aJune 1998 Temple University Law School/Cyberspace Law Institute webpage by David G. Post:
"... The courts, not surprisingly, are struggling to come up with a coherent doctrine of personal jurisdiction for Internet transactions. It is probably far too early to suggest that concrete rules have yet emerged. ... A few general themes appear to be emerging. ...
- 1. Presence on the World Wide Web is not sufficient, in and of itself, to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over non-resident defendants. ...
- 2. Some courts will read the due process constraints "liberally," sustaining exercises of jurisdiction on the basis of little more than the accessibility of defendant's (foreign) web page to residents of the forum State. Cases generally applying the broadest possible view of Internet contacts, and sustaining exercises of personal jurisdiction on the basis of the accessibility of defendant's web sites to residents of the forum state, include ... Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996) ...
- 3. A "sliding scale" for the evaluation of Internet contacts, under which the "likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet," has been endorsed by a number of courts in recent months, and may be in the process of becoming a generally-accepted standard for evaluating the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on contacts over the Internet. As set forth in the case of Zippo Manufacturing Company v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa., Jan 16, 1997):
- "At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. E.g. Compuserve, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.2d 1257 (6th Cir.1996).
- At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise personal jurisdiction. E.g. Bensusan Restaurant Corp., v. King, 937 F.Supp. 296 (SDNY 1996).
- The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Website. ..."(emphasis supplied). ...".
If my case might be determined by that "middle ground", then,since my case is a due process and free speech case with nocommercial factors, and since the Cornell archives also have nocommercial factor, the issues would be:
According to aCornell e-print archive web page:
"... General Information About the ArchivesStarted in Aug 1991, arXiv.org (formerly xxx.lanl.gov) is a fully automated electronic archive and distribution server for research papers. Covered areas include physics and related disciplines, mathematics, nonlinear sciences, computational linguistics, and neuroscience.
Users can retrieve papers from the archive either through an on-line world wide web interface, or by sending commands to the system via e-mail. Similarly, authors can submit their papers to the archive either using the on-line world wide web interface, using ftp, or using e-mail. Authors can update their submissions if they choose, though previous versions remain available. ...".
The Cornell archivesclearly have a high level of interactivity.
Since "... authors can submit theirpapers to the archive either using the on-line world wide webinterface, using ftp, or using e-mail. ...", each submission of apaper to the Cornell archives is clearly an instance ofinteractivity. According to aCornell e-print archive web page monthly submissions fromJanuary 2000 through October 2002 exceeded 2,000 submissions permonth.
Since "... Users can retrieve papersfrom the archive either through an on-line world wide web interface,or by sending commands to the system via e-mail. ...", eachconnection might also be considered to be an instance ofinteractivity. According to a Cornell e-print archive web page,from January 2002 through October 2002 the number of connectionsper month exceeded 1 million.
As Paul Ginspargsaid at a UNESCO Conference in Paris in 1996: "... These archivesnow serve over 35,000 users worldwide from over 70 countries, andprocess more than 70,000 electronic transactions per day. In somefields of physics, they have already supplanted traditional researchjournals as conveyers of both topical and archival researchinformation ... For some fields of physics, open (i.e. unrefereed)distribution of research can work well and has advantages forresearchers both in developed and undeveloped countries. ...".
As Paul Ginspargsaid at a UNESCO Conference in Paris in 2001: "... According tothe submission statistics sorted by e-mail domain of the submittingauthor, roughly 30% of the submissions come from United States basedsubmitters; 12% from Germany; 6% from each of the U.K., Italy, Japan;5% from France; and submissions overall arrive from about 100different countries. ...".
Although I do not have full statistics for submissions from theNorthern District of the State of Georgia, USA, a (probably verysmall) sample of submissions from there during 2002 include:
Therefore, it seems to me that
My case against the Cornell archives seems to me to be sort ofrelated to a case described in aTemple Law School web page:
"... American Nework, Inc. v. Access America, 1997 WL 466507 (S.D.N.Y. August 14, 1997).The District Court concluded that exercising personal jurisdiction over a Georgia Corporation, based on the maintenance of a web site and 6 contracts with New York residents was reasonable. ... As for a due process analysis, the court acknowledged that simply maintaining a web site on the internet would not, necessarily, by itself constitute purposeful availment. However, Access's consistent marketing to the entire U.S., as well as, servicing its customers in New York, were sufficient. Based on these activities it was foreseeable that Access could be haled into court not only where its web site had been viewed, but where Access had secured customers. ...".
In my case, instead of a Georgia entity being subjected to thejurisdiction of New York,
For reference, according to aganet.org web page, the Georgia long-arm statute says:
"... 9-10-91. A court of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nonresident ... as to a cause of action arising from any of the acts, omissions, ownership, use, or possession enumerated in this Code section, in the same manner as if he were a resident of the state, if in person or through an agent, he: (1) Transacts any business within this state; ... (3) Commits a tortious injury in this state caused by an act or omission outside this state if the tort-feasor regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, ... in this state; (4) Owns, uses, or possesses any real property situated within this state; ...".
In the context of my case, "business" would include submission toand connection to the Cornell archives.
On 26 November 2002 I received an e-mail message signed "- Someonewho reads" that led me to discover that
on an e-printarchives web page related to the Open Archives / Santa FeConvention.
The fact that the e-print archivesblacklist is inconsistent with their declared policy of openauthorship makes me think that not only is a suit well founded, butalso that it is necessary to correct actions that are blatantlyinconsistent with the declared policy of the e-print archives.
My objectives in a suit are:
I filed my suitin the United State District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia on 6 December 2002.
On 3 February 2003 Cornell (and its individuals) and The Regents(of the University of California) d/b/a Los Alamos NationalLaboratory (and their individuals) filed their Motions to Dismiss mysuit, along with supporting Memoranda (briefs) and Affidavits. Ireceived their material in paper form (not electronic), so I am notputting it on my web site, but I am filing my Response to theirMotions along with my Memorandum (brief) and Affidavit in supportthereof. Here in pdf form is myResponse, and here in pdf form is myMemorandum, and here in pdfform is my Affidavit. NSF and DOE (as parts of the U.S.government) filed on 19 March 2003 their Motion to Dismiss my suit,and I filed my Response to their Motion and Memorandum in supportthereof on 20 March 2003. I received their material in paper form(not electronic), so I am not putting it on my web site, buthere in pdf form is my Memorandumopposing the Motion to Dismiss by NSF and DOE., and herein pdf form is my 21 March 2003 amendment to my Complaint.
Now, subject to any reply that NSF and DOE might file within 10days (excluding weekends and holidays), we are waiting for the Courtto rule on the Motions to Dismiss.
According to Court Rules and an order of the Court, if the Motionsto Dismiss are denied, we are supposed to have a pre-trial conferencewithin 20 days of that ruling, at which time we are supposed todiscuss such things as discovery and possibility of settlement. Withrespect to the possibility of settlement, I have submitted to theCornell Defendants my proposalfor settlement, which is here in pdf form. My proposed settlementwith the Cornell Defendants would render moot any further action inthis case against NSF, DOE, or the Los Alamos Defendants.
Here are some excerpts from the 70-page order:
"... Plaintiff's Complaint and briefs are not models of clarify [sic] ...... Because the actions of which Plaintiff complains occurred in 2002, and because Plainbtiff has not alleged that a connection exists between Defendant Cornell University and Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Luce, Browne, and Van Ness, Plaintiff's Comnplaint fails to state a cause of action against Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Luce, Browne, and Van Ness. The Court therefore grants the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, Luce, Browne, and Van Ness. ...
... Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California to resume management and control of the arXiv.org website. The Court finds that this argument is without merit. ...
... To determine whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University, the Court must first examine whether a provision of Georgia's long-arm statute applies to Defendant Cornell University. Carekeeper Software Dev. Co. v. Silver, 46 F. Supp 2d 1366, 1369 (N.D. Ga. 1999) ... Georgia's long-arm statute ... O.C.G.A. § 9-10-91(1) confers personal jurisdiction over a defendant who "[t]ransacts any business within this state." ... At most, arXiv.org and Defendant Cornell University engaged in e-mail communications with Plaintiff in response to Plaintiff's inquiries, and allowed Plaintiff and other individuals associated with Georgia institutions to post articles on arXiv.org. Those activities simply are insufficient to allow the Court to conclude that Defendant Cornell University transacted business in Georgia. ...
... Plaintiff apparently argues that Defendant Cornell University is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court under theories of general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. ...
.... A defendant is constitutionally amendable [sic] to a forum's specific jurisdiction if it possesses sufficient contacts with the forum to satisfy due process requirements, and if the forum's exercise of jurisdiction comports with 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Vermuelen v. Renault, U.S.A., Inc., 985 F.2d 1534, 1545 (11th Cir. 1993) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)) ... Here, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Cornell University is subject to the specific jurisdiction of this Court because Defendant Cornell University operates and maintains the arXiv.org website and its database. Although the Court located no case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressing personal jurisdiction based on a defendant's maintenance of a website or database, other courts have adopted the following standards for determining whether personal jurisdiction exists in those circumstances.
[T]he likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. This sliding scale is consistent with well developed personal jurisdiction principles.At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper.
At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction.
The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (citations omitted) ... Other courts have added a requirement that the operator of the website must "manifest an intent to target and focus on" citizens of the forum state. Toys "R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F. 3d 446, 452-53 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F. 3d 256, 263 (4th Cir. 2002) (requiring that defendant's website target Virginia residents). ... The arXiv.org website "is not a passive site that only makes information available," and it is not "a site that clearly does business over the Internet." iAccess, Inc. v. WEBCard Techs., Inc., 182 F. Supp. 1183, 1187 (D. Utah 2002). The arXiv.org website thus falls within the middle range of the Zippo spectrum, and the Court must determine whether the level of interactivity and the commercial nature of arXiv.org's website are sufficient to warrant exercising specific jurisdiction. Id. ... the arXiv.org website sells no products to users, and charges no user or subscriber fees. ... Those contacts "fail to apint the picture of a significantly commerical website that is visited regularly by [Georgia] residents." Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. DAMMADD, Inc., No. Civ. A. 302CV1712G, 2003 WL 29162, at *6 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2003). Further, nothing before the Court indicates that the arXiv.org website specifically targets Georgia residents. Under these circumstance, the Court may not exercise specific jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University based on its manitenance of the arXiv.org website. ...
... Plaintiff also apparently argues that the Court may exercise general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University. A foreign entity's "contacts with the forum that are unrelated to the litigation must be substantial in order to warrant the exercise of general personal jurisdiction." Meier, 288 r. 3d at 1274. "'The due process requirements for general personal jurisdiction are more stringent than for specific personal jurisdiction, and require a showing of continuous and systematic general business contacts between the defendant and the forum state.'" Id. ... The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant Cornell University has engaged in "continuous and systematic general business contacts" with Georgia. Meier, 288 F. 3d at 1274. ... The Court consequently does not have general personal jurisdiction over Defendant Cornell University. ...
... the Court concludes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Cornell Defendants. ...
... The Court consequently need not, and does not, consider the Cornell Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief. ...
... Plaintiff's claims asserted against Defendants National Science Foundation and the United States Department of Energy, however, still remain pending.
It is so ordered, this the 24th day of March, 2003. /s/ Harold L. Murphy UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ...".
As I said above, although I have not yet seen a ruling withrespect to NSF and DOE, I expect that my suit against them will bedismissed at least with respect to jurisdiction. [ In fact, on 16April 2003, my expectation was realized as Judge Murphy dismissed myclaims against NSF and DOE on their merits, so that the CornellDefendants, who are the only Defendants who actively participated inblacklisting me, are the only Defendants as to whom my claims wereNOT dismissed as to their merits. ]
Among the issues not decided in the above ruling are mycontentions that:
If I don't go to the Northern District of New York, BinghamtonDivision, to file a new suitagainst the Cornell Defendants, I may just giveup and go off theweb, leaving my web site up as it is now, as long asinnerx lets it stay as a memorial.
As of now, 13 August 2003:
Carlos Castro, who is also blacklisted, is contacting lawyers in California who might be able to help; andafter seeing a 2 July 2003 article by Jim Galloway in the Atlanta, Georgia, AJC that said
"... former Gov. Roy Barnes on Tuesday [1 July 2003] opened a small law office ... With his son-in-law, John Salter, 27, Barnes has set up a temporary office on the Marietta Square. His daughter, Allison Barnes Salter, an assistant solicitor for Cobb County, will join the firm Sept. 1. All three are University of Georgia law school graduates. Barnes said he intended to keep the Barnes Law Group small, with no more than 10 attorneys. The firm will specialize in consumer actions, including predatory lending and negligence cases. The former governor also plans to resume his specialty, First Amendment cases. ...".I contacted the new firm on Marietta Square about helping with my First Amendment suit against Cornell et al. On Tuesday, 15 July 2003, I received a letter that confirmed what a receptionist at their office had verbally told me the day before: "... Although we have no opinion as to the validity or non-validity of your claims, this matter is not the type of litigation we are accepting into our firm at this time. ...".
On 3 August 2003, I had written a newpaper, with new ideas extending the last paper (physics/0207095)that I had been allowed to post on the arXiv, and I noticed thatarXiv had revised some of its procedures relative to authorregistration, so I sent an e-mail to register-query@arXiv.orgrequesting that I be registered as an author, effectively ending mybeing blacklisted. On the following day, register-query@arXiv.orgreplied, stating "... The registration interface has changed, theunderlying policies have not. ...", thus again refusing to registerme and continuing my blacklisting.
On the Goodside of things, I attended
and presented a talk (here is a webpage used for the talk) and a poster (hereis a web page about the poster), abstractsof which are:
talk: Cl(8), Spin(8)=D4, D5, E6 and the Truth QuarkMass
Abstract: Cl(8) is 256-dimensional, with graded structure1 + 8 + 28 + 56 + 70 + 56 + 28 + 8 + 1
The bivector 28 represents the D4 Lie Algebra Spin(8), a basic local symmetry of the Conformal Symmetric Spaces:
- D5 / D4xU(1)
- E6 / D5xU(1)
Related geometric structures, such as Bounded Complex Domains and Shilov Boundaries, along with combinatorial relations, allowed (as far back as February 1984) calculation of the Truth Quark mass (tree-level) as about 130 GeV.
Fermilab has observed the Truth Quark, and Fermilab first reported that observation in April 1994, but Fermilab's analysis of the events gives a T-quark mass of about 170 GeV.
My independent analysis of the same events gives a Truth Quark mass of about 130 GeV, consistent with my theoretical tree-level calculation.
poster: Periodicity, 26d Bosonic Strings, 27d JordanAlgebra
Abstract: By Clifford Periodicity, a large real Clifford Algebra Cl(8N) factors into the tensor product of N Cl(8) Clifford Algebras:Cl(8N) = Cl(8) x ...(N times)... x Cl(8).
Each Cl(8) is 256-dimensional, with graded structure
1 + 8 + 28 + 56 + 70 + 56 + 28 + 8 + 1 =
= 256 dimensions = 16x16 = (8+8)x(8+8)
The vector 8 and the two half-spinor 8s correspond to the octonions Ov, O+, O- in the 27-dimensional Jordan algebra J3(O) matrix representation:
a O+ Ov*O+ b O-*Ov *O- c where a,b,c are real and * means octonion conjugate.
The 26 dimensions of Closed Unoriented Bosonic String Theory are interpreted as the 26 dimensions of the traceless Jordan sub-algebra J3(O)o.
Each of the 3 Octonionic dimenisons have the following physical interpretation:
- Ov: 4-dimensional physical spacetime plus 4-dimensional internal symmetry space;
- O+: 8 first-generation fermion particles;
- O-: 8 first-generation fermion anti-particles.
Also on the good side,
I have contributed a paper to
My talk was given on 1 November2002. Here is a web page about thepaper, here is the paper in pdf format, andit is also at physics/0207095.A long version of the abstract of the paper is:
A theoretical model based on the D4 Lie Algebra and Hermitian Symmetric Spaces D5 / D4xU(1) and E6 / D5xU(1) and related Shilov Boundaries, along with combinatorial relations, allows the calculation of ratios of particle masses:
- Me-neutrino = Mmu-neutrino = Mtau-neutrino = 0 (tree-level)
- Me = 0.5110 MeV
- Md = Mu = 312.8 MeV (constituent quark mass)
- Mmu = 104.8 MeV
- Ms = 625 MeV (constituent quark mass)
- Mc = 2.09 GeV (constituent quark mass)
- Mtau = 1.88 GeV
- Mb = 5.63 GeV (constituent quark mass)
- Mt = 130 GeV (constituent Truth Quark mass)
and
- W+ mass = W- mass = 80.326 GeV
- Z0 mass = 91.862 GeV
- Higgs mass = 145.8 GeV
- weak force - Higgs VEV = 252.5 GeV (assumed, since ratios are calculated)
as well as ratios of force strength constants:
- Gravitational G = (Ggravity)(Mproton)^2 = 5 x 10^(-39) (assumed, since ratios are calculated)
- electromagnetic fine structure constant = 1/137.03608
- Gfermi = (Gweak)(Mproton)^2 = 1.02 x 10^(-5)
- color force strength = 0.6286 (at 0.245 GeV) - perturbative QCD running gives
- color force strength = 0.167 (at 5.3 GeV)
- color force strength = 0.121 (at 34 GeV)
- color force strength = 0.106 (at 91 GeV)
- If Nonperturbative QCD and other things are taken into account, then the color force strength = 0.123 (at 91 GeV)
The theoretical calculated electromagnetic fine structure constant = 1/137.03608 solves Feynman's mystery (QED, Princeton 1985, 1988, at page 129): "... the inverse of ... about 137.03597 ... [the] square [of] ... the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon ... has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it. ...".
The Truth Quark constituent mass (tree-level) calculation of about 130 GeV had been made by February 1984.
About 10 years later, in April 1994, Fermilab officially announced observation of the Truth Quark.
Fermilab's analysis of the events gives a T-quark mass of about 170 GeV.
My independent analysis of the same Fermilab events gives a Truth Quark mass of about 130 GeV, consistent with the theoretical tree-level calculation.
The local Lagrangian of the theoretical model is based on the structure of the real Cl(1,7) Clifford algebra which, through 8-fold periodicity, might be used to construct a Generalized Hyperfinite II1 von Neumann Algebra factor.
and
I have contributed a paper to
Here is a web page about thepaper, and here is the paper in pdf format.The abstract of the paper is:
Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that consciousness in the human brain may be based on gravitational interactions and quantum superposition states of electrons in tubulin cages in microtubules.Chiao has proposed experimental construction of a gravity antenna that might be analogous to tubulin caged electrons.
Tegmark has criticized Penrose-Hameroff quantum consciousness, based on thermal decoherence of any such quantum superposition states.
This paper briefly describes some experimental results and theoretical ideas that indicate to me that Tegmark's criticism may be invalid.
Such theoretical ideas include Mead's quantum physics of resonance.
This paper closes with brief summaries of
- relevant experiments of Grinberg-Zylberbaum,
- the quantum cosmology of Paula Zizzi, and
- 26-dimensional closed unoriented bosonic string theory interpreted as a many-worlds quantum theory in which strings correspond to world lines, with massless spin-2 gravitons in 26-dimensions corresponding to gravitational interaction among tubulin electrons in states with Penrose-Hameroff superposition separation.
Also, even though the Cornell arXiv blacklisted me in 2002, inNovember 2003 I was able to put on the web arevised version of my paper T-Quark Mass and Hyperfinite II1 vonNeumann factor as EXT-2003-087 onCERN CDS
.Many thanks to CERN CDS.Until Feb 2004 blacklisting had prevented me from posting thatrevised version on the Cornell arXiv. In Feb 2004 arXiv rejected myWMAP ratio calculation paper, but CERN CDS let me post it asEXT-2004-013.
......