(Normal) Tony Smith 10:17 PM 30/9/00 -0400 0 ? LANL strange situation ?
(Normal) Gary S. Bekkum 10:22 PM 30/9/00 -0500 8 Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:04 AM 1/10/00 -0400 4 Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:34 AM 1/10/00 -0400 2 Re: El Naschie and DAMPT
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:54 PM 1/10/00 -0400 18 LANL matter
(Normal) Gary S. Bekkum 1:54 PM 1/10/00 -0500 1 Re: LANL matter
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 9:02 PM 1/10/00 +0200 2 Re: Ginsparg
(Normal) Tony Smith 4:29 PM 1/10/00 -0400 1 Re: Ginsparg
(Normal) Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi) 6:11 PM 2/10/00 +0200 1 About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with cas
(Normal) Alex Granik 10:04 AM 2/10/00 -0700 3 Re: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:06 AM 3/10/00 -0400 4 e-print archive matter
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:18 AM 3/10/00 -0400 2 papers disappear and reappear
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 11:20 AM 3/10/00 +0000 3 Fwd: RE: Review of NUCPHB 7713
(Normal) Tony Smith 11:14 AM 3/10/00 -0400 2 H. Ooguri
(Normal) Tony Smith 11:29 AM 3/10/00 -0400 0 typo error in message about H. Ooguri
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 1:45 PM 3/10/00 -0400 0 Important
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 1:46 PM 3/10/00 -0400 4
(Normal) Alex Granik 11:45 AM 3/10/00 -0700 4 Re: H. Ooguri
(Normal) DavPaulson@aol.com 3:01 PM 3/10/00 -0400 1 Re: Oxmoor offer
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 7:34 PM 4/10/00 -0400 0 Re: message
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 3:32 PM 5/10/00 +0000 5 Re: H. Ooguri
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 5:01 PM 7/10/00 +0000 4 Annals of Physics Cyber-night-mare
(Normal) Alex Granik 2:32 PM 7/10/00 -0700 2 Change of address
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 12:59 PM 8/10/00 +0000 4 Re: Letter and Mohammed
(Normal) Tony Smith 2:40 PM 10/10/00 -0400 5 Mohammed el Naschie matter
(Normal) A.Granik 1:59 PM 10/10/00 -0700 8 Re: Mohammed el Naschie matter
(Normal) Tony Smith 7:49 PM 10/10/00 -0400 1 e-print archive access
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 4:59 PM 11/10/00 +0000 10 Re: Law suit
(Normal) Alex Granik 9:20 PM 11/10/00 -0700 2 Re: e-print archive access
(Normal) Alex Granik 9:26 PM 11/10/00 -0700 2 Re: e-print archive access-addendum
(Normal) Tony Smith 1:28 AM 12/10/00 -0400 5 Re: Re: Law suit
(Normal) Alex Granik 8:43 AM 10/12/00 -0700 9 Re: Law suit
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 6:18 PM 12/10/00 +0000 5 lawyers, Ron Perelman, India.....
(Normal) Alex Granik 11:51 AM 10/15/00 -0700 4 Re: archive access
(Normal) Tony Smith 5:04 PM 10/17/00 -0400 1 Ginsparg, physics, etc.
(Normal) Alex Granik 8:13 PM 18/10/00 -0700 4 Re: Ginsparg, physics, etc.
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:02 AM 19/10/00 -0400 1 letter, etc.
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 5:58 PM 24/10/00 +0200 2 Re: legal costs and temporal costs
(Normal) Alex Granik 9:26 AM 24/10/00 -0700 3 Re: legal costs and temporal costs
(Normal) Tony Smith 2:55 PM 24/10/00 -0400 1 process
(Normal) A.Granik 2:17 PM 24/10/00 -0700 4 Re: process
(Normal) A.Granik 2:24 PM 24/10/00 -0700 3 Re: process
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 3:51 PM 25/10/00 +0000 6 Re: Civil Rights Division
(Normal) Carlos R. Handy 12:05 PM 25/10/00 -0400 0 Re: Civil Rights Division
(Normal) Carlos Perelman 4:23 PM 25/10/00 +0000 3 For your Records : H.Ooguri and NUCPHB 7713
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 7:07 PM 25/10/00 +0200 6 Big Misundertanding
(Normal) A.Granik 12:45 PM 25/10/00 -0700 9 Re: Big Misundertanding
(Normal) A.Granik 1:03 PM 25/10/00 -0700 8 Re: Civil Rights Division
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 10:51 PM 25/10/00 +0200 1 Confusion, miscommunication....
(Normal) Tony Smith 8:09 PM 25/10/00 -0400 5 IJTP paper and misunderstanding
(Normal) Alex Granik 5:40 PM 25/10/00 -0700 8 Re: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
(Normal) Tony Smith 10:20 PM 25/10/00 -0400 2 left and right
(Normal) Alex Granik 8:31 PM 25/10/00 -0700 3 Re: left and right
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 3:25 PM 26/10/00 +0200 3 Re: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 5:53 PM 26/10/00 +0200 11 Letter to the Justice Dept.
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 9:13 PM 26/10/00 +0200 1 Re: Letter to the Justice Dept.
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 11:13 PM 27/10/00 +0200 12 I just sent a new paper to Los Alamos and .....
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 11:25 PM 27/10/00 +0200 12 new paper
(Normal) Tony Smith 7:50 PM 27/10/00 -0400 2 new paper
(Normal) Alex Granik 10:14 AM 29/10/00 -0800 2 New result on the coupling constant
(Normal) Carlos Castro (Spallucci) 8:35 PM 31/10/00 +0100 7 NPB and the Scandal at Los Alamos
(Normal) A.Granik 1:50 PM 31/10/00 -0800 8 Re: NPB and the Scandal at Los Alamos
(Normal) Tony Smith 12:00 AM 1/11/00 -0500 1 Re: NPB and government agencies
=================================================================================================
From ???@??? Sat Sep 30 22:17:19 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.148] (ip148.innerx.net [38.179.176.148])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 5AE7737411; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:18:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b5fc4e75057e@[38.179.176.148]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:17:08 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: ? LANL strange situation ?
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: Pej!!E(j!!T3m!!fio!!
Gary, you say:
"... this LANL situation for Castro is VERY strange
... None of the other kooky stuff at LANL gets this treatment. ...".
What is the LANL situation that you mention?
It has been several months since I last talked to Carlos Castro,
so I guess I don't know what is going on as of now.
Tony 30 Sep 2000
From ???@??? Sat Sep 30 23:48:16 2000
Return-Path: <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net [24.131.1.59])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E111537525
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:23:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mediaone.net (nic-31-c20-174.mn.mediaone.net [24.31.20.174])
by mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA22834;
Sat, 30 Sep 2000 23:22:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39D6ADDC.FB84FFFB@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:22:04 -0500
From: "Gary S. Bekkum" <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Organization: SCI vs PSI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,zh,zh-CN,zh-TW
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
References: <l03102802b5fc4e75057e@[38.179.176.148]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: k9U!!F+6e9eH[d9I=Y!!
[Forwarded from Carlos Castro]
Hola Armando, Alfred, Alex, Jorge, Gary, Mohammed , Dimi, Jamie and
Terry :
The assholes in Los Alamos ( Paul Ginsparg in particular ) are
threatening
to ban the whole University
in Atlanta from posting scientific papers at the Los Alamos archives if
they
defend me...
Incredible
Here I send you the latest message
Jorge : please e-mail Carlos Handy at :
handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
and explain to him in FULL detail the story with Mohammed El Naschie.
Not to
be confused
with my other friend Mohammed....
Since they are refusing to provide us with the name of the person who
accused Mohamed El Naschie of being an
impostor, by pretending to be at DAMTP, Cambridge, I think
it was ALL a LIE and PLOY from Los Alamos to find an excuse to BAN me (
Carlos Castro ) and any collaborators
for life from posting papers on the web.
I did not know that the New Relativity was going to be so revolutionary
!!!...
Carlos
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: galois4@home.com
Delivery-Date: Sat Sep 30 19:06:50 2000
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (infnts.ts.infn.it
[140.105.6.150])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17961
for <castro@axpts2.ts.infn.it>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 19:06:49 +0200
(MET
DST)
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (24.0.95.82) by INFNTS with
TCP/IP
SMTP; Sat, 30 SEP 00 19:07 CET
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id
<20000930170720.JJNL27630.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <castro@ts.infn.it>; Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:07:20 -0700
Message-ID: <39D61D93.BBE391B9@home.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:06:27 -0700
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>
References: <200009301637.SAA16909@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Alex Granik <galois4@home.com>
Subject: Re: NPB ...NSF.....do NOT forget them
Dear Carlos:
I have predicted a long time ago that one should follow the money and
ego:
and here it is.
1)I have sent to Carlos H. a detailed explanation of the incident with
the
affiliation of Mohammed. Now they are threatening even
Catrlos H. And this makes him mad ( a rather dangerous proposition), or
more
correctly makes him more than willing to
get even. I think that they are treading on thin ice in his case,
because he
is a minority (which Ginsparg does not know),
and all this begins to smack very, very badly. The lab has a very bad
publicity, and Carlos H. will complain this is not
going to add to their improved image. I am sure that serious people
there (
a majority) will find the ways to put Mr.
Ginsparg in his appropriate place. It looks that he becomes too big for
his
breeches.
2) Loosing the privilige to place somebody's work on the archive is an
extremely serious business , and it must not be
made
a)on the basis of an undisclosed denunciation ( we are not living under
the
inquisition,
nor in the Stalinist Russia, nor in the National-Socialist Germany)
and
b) without hearing our side of the story: a two-day ultimatum delivered
to
people who
might not read their mail on a daily basis. Once again it smacks of the
Nazi-Communist tactics to deliver the impossible
to satisfy demands ( let's recall Germany's invasion of Poland and
Stalin's
agression against Finland, both followed a
two-day ultimatums).
In the US we HAVE the right to know the names of our accusers (
Mohammed's
accusers ) Otherwise it is a clear violation of
the US Constituion.
What is going on? Who is the nut? In my opinion, the people who fan the
hysteria are the real nuts. This reminds me of the
old trick: a thief always cries catch a thief.
Shalom
Alex
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" wrote:
> Dear Carlos nad Alex and Jorge :
>
> Please do not let NPB off the hook. Those bastards are the ones WHO
started it ALL . We should not
> let them off the hook nor the " jap " Ooguri and the string theory mafia
who are the ones behind all this.
> Ginsparg is just their pawn.
>
> Contact Zinn Justin and Duplantier in France and let them know what Ooguri
did and WHAT NPB did :
> They, by their own admission,
> looked up at my work in Los Alamos on the New Relativity and found it
outlandish = NUT
> Work which had nothing to do with the paper accepted by the 2 referees of
NPB ( it has been revised ) :
>
> " Conformally Invariant sigma models on AdS spaces, Chern-Simons p-branes
> and W geometry " hep-th/9906176
>
> ( currently, the Journal Math Phys, Newton, the Editor, asked me to make
some changes and revisions )
>
> This is what started it all. so we must not let those assholes of NPB off
the hook.
> We should complain to the Elsevier Bosses.
>
> About the scandal ( behind closed doors ) going on in DAMTP, Cambridge. I
think that actually NOBODY
> complained about Mohammed. But it was instead a clever ploy by Los Alamos
to BAN us off the web.
> This is what I think. So we must find out if DAMTP complained or it is a
LIE from Gisnparg.
> If Cambridge complained we MUST know who the person IS so Mohammed can sue
his ass off for defamation
> Mohammed has the right to know who it was, in case this was really the
case !!!......
>
> We have to TEACH this people a LESSON .
>
> Think about this seriuosly....
>
> I will e-mail Finkelstein.
>
> About being a " nut " this is what we expected long ago. Actually it is a
complement and a Suplement.
>
> Mohammed thinks that the REASON all these assholes are pissed off is
because I was nominated for the Peter Gruber
> Foundation Awards of 150,000 $ due to the New Relativity Theory. Mohammed
thinks that I am competing against some of
> these assholes or their friends in Cambridge or in the USA.
>
> So YES, a NUT was nominated for such a big award. It all boils down to
money. It is so sad....
>
> I was thinking of applying for an NSF grant. In view of all this,
> I think I ought to get Paul Ginsparg and the JAP foundation to finance my
future research on the
> New Relativity by giving big money NOT to the NSF but to the other NSF
agency : the NUT SCIENCE FOUNDATION............
>
> Shalom
>
> Carlos
------- End of Forwarded Message
Tony Smith wrote:
>
> Gary, you say:
> "... this LANL situation for Castro is VERY strange
> ... None of the other kooky stuff at LANL gets this treatment. ...".
>
> What is the LANL situation that you mention?
>
> It has been several months since I last talked to Carlos Castro,
> so I guess I don't know what is going on as of now.
>
> Tony 30 Sep 2000
--
"The only justification for our concepts and system of concepts is that
they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they
have no legitimacy."
Albert Einstein - "The Meaning of Relativity"
"No formal 'talent', 'wunderkind abilities', personal ambitions and
relations, technical power, or material prosperity can replace the power
of creation coming only from the open, free interaction with the Truth."
Andrei Kirilyuk - "Universal Concept of Complexity"
"Through this 'Key' Divine Intention can be connected to our world, and
to other may be worlds. Some of those worlds can be the worlds of our
dreams. "The 'Key to the Universe' is the archetype of evolution that
now we know and can use consciously."
George Ryazanov - "Key to Absolute Flight"
"That's the effect of living backwards," the Queen said kindly: "it
always makes one a little giddy at first...but there's one great
advantage in it, that one's memory works both ways."
Lewis Carroll - "Through the Looking Glass"
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 01:07:48 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.162] (ip162.innerx.net [38.179.176.162])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id EE7C43727E; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:06:00 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b5fc65971129@[38.179.176.148]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:04:40 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: ? LANL strange situation ?
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: 26pd94!?!!%@p!!1XV!!
Gary,
thanks for forwarding the messages about the LANL controversy
with Carlos Castro. However, after reading those messages I still
am unclear as to exactly what is going on. Here are some
specific questions/comments that I have. I am sending the e-mail
to you, but you may forward it to whomever you want to forward it.
Is the root of the controversy a claim by DAMPT at Cambridge
that a co-author of Carlos Castro,
named Mohammed El Naschie,
is misrepresenting himself as being associated with DAMPT ?
I looked up "Naschie" as an author on xxx.lanl.gov,
and found two listings:
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0008056
On plausible violations of the Riemann conjecture due
to fractal p-branes in Cantorian-Fractal Spacetime
Authors: Carlos Castro, M. S. El Naschie, J. Mahecha
From: Mahecha Gomez Jorge Eduardo <mahecha@ictp.trieste.it>
This paper is said to exist in 4 versions,
but none of them seem to be available.
When you try to get any version, you get a message like:
"The author has provided no source to generate postscript,
and no postscript."
and
"The author has provided no source to generate PDF, and no PDF".
There are comments:
"v3: The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed.
v4: This paper has been withdrawn
This paper has been withdrawn".
Although I could not download any version 3 of the full paper,
there does exist an abstract of version 3 at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0008056v3
which abstract of version 3 states:
"It is explicitly shown using a Mathematica package
that non-trivial complex zeroes of the Riemann zeta function may
exist which {\bf do not} lie in the critical line: $ Re ~ s = 1/2$.
The generation of the location of these plausible zeroes,
that may violate the Riemann conjecture, is based on the study
of fractal strings/branes moving in a Cantorian-Fractal spacetime.
Since this result was very strange we did a search for any possible
bugs in the package. We found that the package yields {\bf spurious}
zeroes {\bf without any warning} when the variables are evaluated u
p to 16 decimal places. However when calculations are performed
up to 40 decimal places there is a {\bf huge} discrepancy.
Therefore it is warranted that true analytical calculations
be performed to verify without any doubts whether these zeroes a
re spurious or not."
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
Why we live in 3 Dimensions
Authors: Carlos Castro, Alex Granik, M.S.El Naschie
From: castro@ctsps.cau.edu
This paper is said to exist in 5 versions, but only the latest (v5)
seems to be available. In pdf format, it is about 400 k in size.
There is a comment:
"The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed."
-------------------------------------------------------------
If there were an incorrect institutional affiliation of
M. S. El Naschie, then it seems to have been removed,
so
why is the problem not solved, and everybody happy ?
What is the EXACT nature of the threat described as
"... Paul Ginsparg ...
threatening to ban the whole University in Atlanta
from posting scientific papers at the Los Alamos archives ..." ?
Since
only one of the papers (hep-th/0004152) was sent from ctsps.cau.edu
(CTSPS at Clark Atlanta University),
and
the other paper (hep-th/0008056) was sent from ictp.trieste.it
does
the threat to ban from posting at the Los Alamos archives
also apply to the ICTP at Trieste ?
If the threat only applies to one instituion, and not the other,
then what is the basis for the distinction ?
Could it be that one is European (Trieste)
and
the other was founded by freed African US slaves (Clark Atlanta) ?
Tony 1 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 01:43:14 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.162] (ip162.innerx.net [38.179.176.162])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 48F2D378C8; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5fc782f6f7a@[38.179.176.162]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 01:34:02 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: El Naschie and DAMPT
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: p8(e9Jni!!MJU!!)D2!!
With respect to the institutional affiliation of El Naschie,
I found (by google search of the web) a web page at URL
http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
that said, in part:
"... Proceedings of the Conference were published in
Wolfgang Hofkirchner (ed.): The Quest for a Unified Theory of Information.
World Futures General Evolution Studies Vol. 13,
Gordon & Breach 1999, 590 pp.
as well as in World Futures, Volumes 49 (3-4) & 50 (1-4) 1997.
...
Muhammad S. El Naschie
* Dimensional Symmetry Breaking, Information
and the Arrow of Time in Cantorian Space
DAMTP - Cambridge, U.K.
We derive the exact expectation value for the dimensionality
of a Cantorian space-time as well as it's standart deviation.
These are found to lead to max=4 and max=8.
Connections to time symmetry breaking and the generalization
of complex numbers are also discussed.
Keywords: dimension of space-time, Cantorian space-time,
Hausdorff dimension, symmetry breaking, Gravity
...".
Therefore, it seems that Gordon & Breach,
and editor Wolfgang Hofkirchner, had described El Naschie
as being with (in some unstated capacity) at "DAMTP - Cambridge, U.K.".
Further, the web page at URL
http://solvayins.ulb.ac.be/generated/julyconf.html
for a Solvay Brussels Meeting II, 02-06 July 1997,
describes, in its list of speakers:
"El Naschie M. (Cambridge, UK)".
Still further, the web page at URL
http://wmy2000.math.jussieu.fr/cairo/ListOfParticipants.html
for MATHEMATICS AND THE 21st CENTURY, Cairo - Egypt, 15-20 January 2000,
lists as "* =Plenary or Topical lecture speaker":
"*M. S. El-Naschie, Cambridge, UK".
There may be more such listings on the web,
but I will stop with the 3 pages described above.
Therefore:
it seems to me that Carlos Castro, and other coauthors
of the papers hep-th/0004152 and hep-th/0008056,
were not alone in describing El Naschie as having some
connection with DAMPT,
and
that it is unfair to attack them and leave all the others alone,
particularly
since those two papers have been revised
as described in comments to their xxx.lanl.gov postings:
"The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed.",
while
other references to El Naschie as being affiliated with DAMPT are
still up on the web for everybody (including me) to see.
Tony 1 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 13:06:20 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.145] (ip145.innerx.net [38.179.176.145])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id BA2B837908; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:56:18 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5fd1b84eafa@[38.179.176.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:54:57 -0400
To: gbekkum@mediaone.net
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: LANL matter
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: Hk,!!!Q2e9Q<F!!-;[!!
Gary, here is a copy of a message that I sent to Carlos Castro,
in reply to a message that I received from him.
Also, since his message says that it sent a copy to
gabekkum@mediaone.net
which I think is an incorrect address, because I tried to use
it in sending you a copy of my reply to Carlos, and it bounced.
I have put a copy of the message from Carlos at the end of
my message.
Here is my message to Carlos:
=======================================================================
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 12:47:31 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: LANL e-print archive
Cc: gabekkum@mediaone.net, tsmith@innerx.net
Carlos, thanks very much for your message giving me some more
details about the situation with the LANL e-print archive.
You ask: "... David Finkesltein's journal.
I met a Doctor named Smith in his office who
knew a lot of group theory, is this you, Tony ? ...".
Yes, except that I am a Lawyer rather than a Doctor.
You say "... Now Paul Ginsparg is threatening
to ban Clark Atlanta University from posting papers
to Los Alamos if they DEFEND me !!! ...".
Do you have copies of any messages that Paul Ginsparg sent
making such threats ? The exact language of such messages
may be important.
Also, you say: "... Under the US constitution ... one has the right
to know who the alleged accuser is ? ...".
Regrettably, that is not always true.
Even in criminal cases, secret grand jury testimony may
be used in getting indictments against citizens of the USA.
In a less legalistic framework,
the widespread practice of anonymous refereeing of papers
submitted to journals for publication deprives authors
of papers of the right to know who is taking action against them.
I have done some refereeing myself, and I have made it a
practice to have copies of my (sometimes negative) referee
reports sent to the authors in my own name so that they know who
is disagreeing with them and why.
I think that a stronger legal point is your statement:
"... Censorship ... is illegal in the USA.
It goes against the first ammendment. It is a violation of
the basic rights a human has to express himself/herself.
Los Alamos is a Federal Agency funded with the US taxpayers money. ...".
You also say: "... Paul Ginsparg is accusing me of being a NUT ...".
The exact language of what Paul Ginsparg is saying may be important.
Do you have copies of his statments about you being a "NUT" ?
The term "NUT" is an emotionally charged term,
and use of it indicates that the user
may be more emotionally disturbed by,
rather than intellectually critical of,
the ideas of the person being described as a "NUT".
I will quote from the preface to a book, The Behavior of the Earth,
by Claude Allegre (Harvard University Press 1988), which book
deals with the concept of continental drift,
a theory advocated by Alfred Wegener as early as 1912,
but not accepted by the USA/British geological establishment
until after World War II. Claude Allegre says:
"... The newer an idea, the more shocking it is, and the more it disturbs
those who established their reputation before its emergence,
as well as
those whose intellectual security is upset by it.
Originality is a highly esteemed virtue as long as it is not TOO original.
...
To paraphrase Rene Girard's notion ...
the only tolerable originalities are those that are
differentiably original (in a mathematical sense).
The quantum jump in the evolution of scientific ideas is taboo ...".
I have read many of your papers, and (as you say) have had
conversations with you, and,
although I may not agree with every detail of your physics models
(because they are not exactly like my physics model,
and my personal preference is for mine),
I find that even those ideas of yours with which I do not
totally agree are interesting and thought-provoking.
As you say,
"... One should let the scientific community decide for themselves.
... scientists, and the public, have the right to know
about the latest developments and
the new theories and paradigms in science. ...".
Tony 1 Oct 2000
PS - Paul Ginsparg's apparent emotional problems with your ideas
may be due at least in part to your criticism of string theory.
For instance,
in hep-th/0004152 you and your co-authors say:
"... During 30 years of its development the string theory
demonstrated remarkable achievements in all but one respect:
there is no direct way to verify its theoretical results. ...".
You are saying "the emperor has no clothes",
which is NOT something the string theorists want to hear.
You may be correct when you say "... I am in competition with them
... . As usual, the bottom line boils down to money. ...".
It might be interesting to have a debate between string theorists
and alternative theorists, such as you (and me, for that matter),
with the debate being at a large center such as Stanford or Harvard,
and with attendance open to undergraduate and graduate students
who are early enough in their careers to have minimal vested interest
in existing paradigms,
and letting the students make up their own minds.
I will close by saying that my view of conventional superstring theory
agrees with Feynman's statement in the book Superstrings
by Davies and Brown, , Cambridge 1988, pp. 194-195):
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. ...
I don't like it that they're not calculating anything. ...
why are the masses of the various particles
such as quarks what they are?
All these numbers ... have no explanations in these string theories -
absolutely none! ... ".
=====================================================================
Here is the message from Carlos:
=====================================================================
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
To: gabekkum@mediaone.net, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Censorship at Los Alamos part 2.
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 16:04:08 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
Dear Tony and Gary :
I am sending you the details of the story.
I was able to post papers from Italy because the ROBOT didn't recognize my
e-mail address .
It recognizes my Atlanta address. Now the robot knows about my Italian
address.
This is why I had to ask someone else to submit the papers from their
account.
The most recent paper with Jorge Mahecha went through the hep-th barrier
becuase it was sent from Mahecha's e-mail address in
Colombia, so the robot would not recognize it.
The first paper with Mahecha and El Naschie was removed because as we
suspected the zeroes were spurious due to
a bug in the Mathematica package and also after several e-mails exchanges
with some mathematicians.
However, prior to its removal, Los Alamos claimed to have received " an
official complaint " that El Naschie was not at
Cambridge. He is the chief Editor of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. For
years, and years, Cambridge, has received copies of
this journal and nobody has accused El Naschie of anything. Elsevier
publishers would have been in deep legal problems had el Naschie
not been affiliated at Cambridge. It takes just 2 seconds to go to the
Elsevier's web page for Chaos, Solitons and Fractals and you will
see El Naschie affiliation with Cambridge.
What did actually happen ? I think, I repeat : this is what I think,
Paul Ginsparg and his buddies wanted to find out El Naschie's e-mail but
could NOT find it.
All e-mail correspondence is handled by the secretaries of the journal. He
is an extremely busy person who wants to maintain his
privacy. So...since Los Alamos could not find his e-mail they immediately
jumped into the wrong conclusion that he was not in
Cambridge and sent us a two-day ultimatum to remove his affiliation from
Cambridge or else ALL of us will be ban for life
from the Los Alamos web. I was travelling in France and Spain at the time
so I never knew anything becuase I did not read
my e-mail on a daily basis, but Alex Granik and Jorge Mahecha at " gun
point " had to
remove El Naschie's affiliation.
We wanted to know who the were the " official accusers " of El Naschie but
our mesages were completely ignored.
Under the US constitution ( and British law ) one has the right to know who
the alleged accuser is ?
You do not give somebody a two-day
ultimatum like Hitler and Stalin did with Poland and Finland ?
A two day ultimatum triggered by an undisclosed denunciation !!! This is
illegal, this are TERROR tactics of
a totalitarian regime, not of a democracy.
Prof. Michael Green at Cambridge wrote a letter to Mohammed El Naschie to
his home address. Where did he get his address ?
>From the secretary of the Department at Cambridge !....
Now Paul Ginsparg is threatening to ban Clark Atlanta University from
posting papers to Los Alamos if they DEFEND me
!!! Who is the nut here ?
Please take a look at the papers of mine ( with Alex Granik ) on the
physics archives.
The last two papers on " the Logarithmic Corrections to the
Black Hole Entropy derived from the New Relativity" that have been
submitted to David Finkesltein's journal.
I met a Doctor named Smith in his office who knew a lot of group theory,
is this you, Tony ?
and after reading those two papers on the derivation of the logarithmic
corrections to the Black Hole Entropy , tell me if I am a NUT.
Paul Ginsparg is accusing me of being a NUT and this is why he is censoring
my work and removing it from the hep-th archives.
When you read the story below about Nuclear Phyiscs B , and all the other
details of the
Los Alamos saga, then you will understand where this suffocating censorship
and boycott
of the New Relativity started. Paul Ginsoparg is just a " pawn " of the
String Theory Mafia. He is acting on external pressure.
I was nominated for the Peter Gruber Foundation Award of 150,000 $ for the
New Relativity. This has pissed off many people because
I am in competition with them or their buddies. As usual, the bottom line
boils down to money.
Plesae Notice that the letter below contains additional material that Gary
never had.
I have edited a few things here and there in the letter below with all the
details.
The letter is NOT an exact copy to the letter sent to Fred Cooper who is
the Director of the Theory
Group at Los Alamos. He is the supervisor of Paul Ginsparg.
Unfortunaly, Fred Cooper is at the moment at Boston College. In any case
here are the details.
Best wishes
Carlos
Dear Dr. Cooper:
My name is Carlos Castro. I am a an associate research scientist at the NSF
Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems in Clark Atlanta University,
Atlanta, GA. , USA. And I am currently visting at the moment the Physics
Dept at
the University of Trieste, in Italy.
Lately I have been subjected ( and my colleague Prof. Alex Granik ) to a
repeated series of
degrading incidents of CENSORSHIP : the systematic removal from the
hep-th-archives ,
and/or the transfer to archives others than the intended hep-th-archives,
of a collection of what I believe to be very important scientific papers
authored by myself,
and others co-authored with prof. Alex Granik. These papers on the New
Relativity Theory are
important because they may signal a New paradigm in Theoretical Physics and
potentially in all
branches of science; i.e one can obtain answers in a straightforwad
fashion to old problems
which took years to prove, for example.
I will just ouutline a PARTIAL list of the most recent preposterous and
malicious chain of
illicit incidents representing a monitored and systematic
CENSORSHIP and BOYCOT of our work ( in particular targeted to myself,
Dr.Castro ) by some members
of the scientific community :
1) On Aug. 24 , 2000 Prof. Granik sent the paper
"P-loop Oscillator on Clifford Manifolds and Black Hole Entropy"
Authors: Carlos Castro and Alex Granik
to be deposited to the quantum-physics archives. It was automatically
removed and subsequently
re-routed to the physics
archives ( physics/0008222) without any justification for re-routing. All
the letters asking for an explanation had been ignored.
2) Prof. Granik tried to cross list the above paper to
either the hep-th/archives ( where it belongs) or to the
quant-ph-archives, but received a
the standard reply : " this paper cannot be cross listed to the hep-th " .
" This paper cannot be cross-listed to the quant-phy "
3) A month later, on 9/25/00 another paper of ours entitled :
"Logarithmic corrections to the black hole entropy from the extended
scale relativity"
which had been successfully accepted by hep-th/archives and
assigned an ID hep-th/0009194 with the respective password was also removed :
When Prof. Granik tried to access the paper the following day it WAS NOT
THERE. Someone
removed it, manually, without even notifying us!
4) We tried to deposit the same paper once again
( on Tue., Se p.. 26), and once again the transfer went smoothly. The
paper has been assigned the ID number hep-th/0009214 and the respective
password. However when prof. Granik tried to access the paper he
encountered the
same problem: the paper was NOT there : it had been REMOVED illicitly once
again without
any notification.
5) Today ( 9/27/00) we tried to deposit our paper
"On quantum aspects of the logarithmic corrections to the black hole
entropy"
to the quant-ph/archives. Instead, it was automatically removed and
transferred to the physics
archives and assigned the following ID:physics/0009088. When prof. Granik
tried to
retrieve the paper he simply could not access the archive site, as if
someone was deliberately blocking his access to the site.
In view of the above-mentioned PARTIAL list of unpleasant ( mildly
speaking) incidents.
I have NOT mentioned the other illicit censorship and harassment actions
prior to this partal list of
degrading events. They are too painful to mention !
I am beginning to form the well founded impression that there are clear
signs of DISCRIMINATION
exercised against myself, a Hispanic scientist, Dr. Carlos Castro in
conjunction to my affiliation with a
predominantly Black University : Clark Atlanta University. The NSF research
center is located in
Clark Atlanta University.
This chain of illicit censorship actions and boycott of my work by some
mebers of the scientific community,
started with a well sounded and rigourous paper of mine ( Dr. Castro ) ,
that was accepted by the 2 referees of
a leading first class journal , Nuclear Physics B (NPB), and was ready for
publication.
However, at the last minute, it was prevented from publication , when the
paper was in " the printer " ,
due to the unprofessional and shameful intervention of a Berkeley Professor
( at the time )
The latter person had shown a " great interest " in my paper becase he had
worked in a similar topic as the accepted paper .
I believe the person involved was Hitoshi Ooguri, at UC Berkeley ( now at
Caltech Pasadena )
because he was the only member of the NPB Editorial Board
who has worked on the same topics as the accepted paper in question.
Prof. H. Ooguri had a " great interest in my work ".... Based on this
shameful behaviour
it all seems that for his own professional gain,
he had a great interest in preventing my paper from being published in a
top rated journal !.....
Paper that had been recommended for publication by the 2 referees.
When Dr. Carlos Handy, Co-Director of the CTSPS Center in Atlanta, legally
complained in a very polite fashion to NPB,
what Nuclear Phyiscs B ( NPB ) did , by their OWN admission ! , was to
look at the recent papers of mine ( Dr. Castro)
on the Los Alamos website and complained that the papers on the New
Relativity were outlandish.
Papers which had NOTHING to do whatsoever with the paper accepted initially
by the 2 referees of NPB !!!!
All this shameful conduct by the Los Alamos archives administrators, and NPB ,
is very dubious and illicit and suggests that there is a definite concerted
effort by some members of the
scientific community ( the string theory community in particular ) to
systematically boycott and CENSOR, at all costs,
any work pertaining to the New Relativity Theory and prevent it from being
made
public to a larger audience of scientists. The readership of the physics
archives is far, far less than the
readership of the hep-th-archives.
This is just the beginning of the " witch hunt " :
Now my work on the New Relativity is being " damped " into the physics
archives.
Then it will be damped to the garbage. Then I will be prevented from
posting anything I write on the Los
Alamos archives or publish in any journal. And afterwards , who knows, I
may probably will be outcast, jailed,
lynched and burnt at the stake...
I wrote an e-mail long ago to the administrators of Los Alamos warning them
that I will be taking this sahameful
incident to the Press and the Media; I will notify members of the US
Senate and Congress;
members of the Black and Hispanic Community; the American Civil Liberties
Union; etc......
and I will divulge these shameful incidents to the whole scientific community.
Therefore, I would like to ask you , as Director of the Theory Divission at
Los Alamos, to find the way to put an end to
these incidents and to resolve them ( in cooperation with the interested
parties, that is
us, the authors) before they will develop into a major problem, or in
another potential scandal for Los Alamos, with
unintended repercussions and all sorts of dire legal ramifications.
Censorship, discrmination, harassment, ..... is illegal in the USA. It goes
against the first ammendment.
It is a violation of the basic rights a human has to
express himself/herself. Los Alamos is a Federal Agency funded with the US
taxpayers money.
The systematic censorship , discrimination ; the " witch hunt " we have
been subjected to in the past months
by the administrators of the Los Alamos archives ; the suffocating boycott
of our scientific work by some mebers of
the scientific establishment is disgraceful, degrading, malicious, cruel....;
It is just unacceptable in a democracy. Especially at the beginning of a
New Millennium.
Using the excuse " this paper is not appropriate for so and so ..." is
preposterous.
One should let the scientific community decide for themselves. The young
scientists, and the public, have the right to
know about the latest developments and the new theories and paradigms in
science.
Sincerely,
Carlos Castro
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------- End of Forwarded Message
=======================================================================
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 15:04:26 2000
Return-Path: <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net [24.131.1.59])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2827237A87
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:55:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mediaone.net (nic-31-c20-174.mn.mediaone.net [24.31.20.174])
by mnmai05.mn.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA10114;
Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:55:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <39D78882.21EBFF0D@mediaone.net>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:54:58 -0500
From: "Gary S. Bekkum" <gbekkum@mediaone.net>
Organization: SCI vs PSI
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,zh,zh-CN,zh-TW
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: LANL matter
References: <l03102801b5fd1b84eafa@[38.179.176.145]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: )j*!!=*R!!i4B!!o?Y!!
Thanks Tony.
It will be interesting to see how the "power of the internet" affects
this kind of political nonsense.
Gary
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 15:04:26 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A4C37A84
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 15:03:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA01114;
Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:02:28 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010011902.VAA01114@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
Subject: Re: Ginsparg
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:47:31 EDT."
<l03102800b5fd0984b060@[38.179.176.162]>
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:02:27 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: O4Ee9TP<!!MBE!!a9`d9
Dear Tony :
Thank you very much for your nice e-mail.
I am sorry that I though you were a doctor. Now I recall you being a lawyer
with an encyclopedic knowledge about the History of Physics.
As I suspected , the two papers on the derivation of the Black Hole Entropy and
its logarithmic corrections have now been removed from the physics archives and from the web, period.
A friend of mine just notified this two pieces of bad news to me. I checked if those two papers were on the
physics archives and now they have been removed.
Prof. David Finkelstein will be getting the hardcopies for his journal where we write a JOINT paper combining
the two into one. We wanted these papers in the hep-th archives because we wrote to Bekenstein and Majumdar
telling them about our results which by different methods arrive at the same results that took years to achieve.
Bekenstein and Majumdar did not even have the courtesy to respond. They may or may not have seen the papers in the
physics archives prior to their removal. I do not think they read the physics archives to start with. This is not
a derrogatory statement against the Physics archives, however people tend to read certain sections of the web only.
Yes; I may have been too emotional in my use of the language in some papers. I apologize for that.
I will be sending you the latex file of the paper for David so you can take a look.
Plesae call Dr. Carlos Handy in Atlanta at 404-880-8664
and e-mail to him : handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
and let him know that you know Prof. David Finkelstein and myself personally, etc....and I am sure he will
be able to give you the details of Ginsparg's foul play and threats. Let him know you are lawyer as well with a
deep knowledge of Physics and group theory.
Thank you
Hope to see you again in Atlanta and discuss other things more pleasant than these !
Carlos
From ???@??? Sun Oct 01 16:30:01 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.177] (ip177.innerx.net [38.179.176.177])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id AA7B93739F; Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:30:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5fd3e5d1af2@[38.179.176.145]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 16:29:15 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: Ginsparg
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu,
david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
X-UIDL: //?e9cE"e9kIB!![#;e9
I am sorry that more of your papers seem to be removed
from the LANL e-print archives.
You say that you "... may have been too emotional in ... language
in some papers ...".
I do not think that you are at fault there.
I think that it is proper to use emotional language in physics
papers, so that readers will know how you feel about the subject.
My criticism was not of your language,
but
was of the apparent emotional reaction by Paul Ginsparg,
who was NOT writing in a paper put up on the archive for everyone to read,
but
who appears to have been using emotional language to try to justify his
censorship and suppression of your ideas.
Your suggestion that I contact the other Carlos (Handy) is
a good one. He is a friend of mine, and I will try to go see
him at his office over the next few days.
Tony 1 oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 00:06:58 2000
Return-Path: <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C72537443
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 12:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA20457;
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:11:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010021611.SAA20457@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: galois4@home.com
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with castro!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:11:32 +0200
From: Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi) <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: 0TLe9:_7e9HFA!!Sobd9
Dear ALEX , CARLOS and TONY,
I am writing to all you because yesterday 1 October aroud 20:00 Italian time!
I was doing a search for Castro in the Physics archives, and I was surprised
That I didn't find the two papers on the Black hole entropy. I immediatly
called Carlos Castro and I notified him about the removal of the papers in the
archives. We did a new search several times over the FULL archives but the two
papers were not there!
I am really worry what is happening to Carlos, because today the papers are
again on the web! this means that there are PLAYING with him! I think this
situation is becoming exagerate and dangerous not only for him but for all the
scientific community!
If you need my testimony I am willing to send you an official letter.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Quiroz
Department of Theoretical Physics
Trieste University
Strada Costiera 11
Miramare-Grignano
TRIESTE - ITALY
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 00:06:59 2000
Return-Path: <galois4@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B84373E8
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:05:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001002170514.PMWH6495.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:05:14 -0700
Message-ID: <39D8C012.4B699D15@home.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 10:04:18 -0700
From: Alex Granik <galois4@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi)" <quiroz@ts.infn.it>,
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
"Tony,the lawyer" <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with castro!
References: <200010021611.SAA20457@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 8_i!!]59!!+0R!!$okd9
Dear Alex:
Thanks for your letter, since I have checked the papers yesterday , and they were
there. This prompted me to write a letter to Carlos telling him that the papers
are there. I did not checked them at the time when you did that, and therefore I
had an impression that nothing has happened.
I agree with you that this situation sets a dangerous precedent for a
professsional destruction of anyone who does not "march in step" with the
accepted orthodoxy. This begs a question: is the age of a new inquisition is
here?
I think that you should immediately notify the leadership of Trieste Center about
this dangerous incidents, thus mobilizing the powerful forces which could
successfully fight these swallows of new "dark ages".
On my side, I am ready and willing to testify ( in writing) and anywhere about
these nasty incidents of an intellectual "massacre"
Best wishes,
Sincerely,
Alex
"Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi)" wrote:
> Dear ALEX , CARLOS and TONY,
>
> I am writing to all you because yesterday 1 October aroud 20:00 Italian time!
> I was doing a search for Castro in the Physics archives, and I was surprised
> That I didn't find the two papers on the Black hole entropy. I immediatly
> called Carlos Castro and I notified him about the removal of the papers in the
> archives. We did a new search several times over the FULL archives but the two
> papers were not there!
>
> I am really worry what is happening to Carlos, because today the papers are
> again on the web! this means that there are PLAYING with him! I think this
> situation is becoming exagerate and dangerous not only for him but for all the
> scientific community!
>
> If you need my testimony I am willing to send you an official letter.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Alex Quiroz
> Department of Theoretical Physics
> Trieste University
> Strada Costiera 11
> Miramare-Grignano
> TRIESTE - ITALY
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 00:07:25 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.157] (ip157.innerx.net [38.179.176.157])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 15B6637084; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b5fefb6d1db9@[38.179.176.177]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:06:39 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: e-print archive matter
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: _@Xd9!]5!!gN0e9eN^!!
Today I went to CAU and talked to Carlos Handy and Alfred Msezane,
both of whom are sympathetic to your position in the e-print archive matter.
Carlos Handy said that he would contact some more people who
are involved with the e-print archives to try to find out more
of what is the actual official position of the e-print archives.
For his information, I am sending a copy of this to Carlos Handy.
Even though Paul Ginsparg may have said things like,
as you stated in your e-mail to me:
"... threatening to ban Clark Atlanta University from
posting papers to Los Alamos ..."
and
"... accusing [you, Carlos Castro] of being a NUT ...",
that
does NOT mean that the e-print archive has agreed or will agree
with such things or adopt them as official positions.
As of today (Monday 2 October 2000) I have seen listings
of 30 papers of yours still on the archive hep-th,
going back as far as 1993 (hep-th/9305157),
and
1 paper of yours (physics/0002019) on the general physics archive.
I notice that that paper, dated 9 February 2000, was sent
from your CAU e-mail address castro@ctsps.cau.edu
and
I wonder what were the circumstances that caused it to
be posted on the general physics archive instead of hep-th ?
I see that, of the two papers co-authored with El Naschie,
one (hep-th/0008056) has been withdrawn (as you said,
because of such things as a bug in the Mathematica package used in it),
and
the other (hep-th/0004152) has removed any reference to DAMPT
as an affiliation of El Naschie.
I myself don't know El Naschie's relationship with DAMPT,
except that it seems (for some reason unclear to me) to be
controversial and that it is stated in other places on the web,
so your paper is NOT the only place that refers to El Naschie
as having a DAMPT affiliation.
Unless and until the e-print archive takes further action
(such as removing or moving your papers, or refusing to
accept papers from CAU, etc.),
my suggestion to you for the time being would be to wait
and see what the e-print archive takes to be its official postion.
It may turn out that its official position might be
quite different from the things that Paul Ginsparg may have said.
hep-th/0009014 is the most recent paper that I see on
the listing of papers on the e-print archive with Carlos Castro as author.
Please let me know if and when anything further occurs,
and
if any future paper of yours is rejected by hep-th
when you try to post using your cau address castro@ctsps.cau.edu
please let me know the exact language of that rejection.
Out of curiosity, exactly what is your understanding
of the relationship between El Naschie and DAMPT ?
Tony 2 October 2000
PS - For your information, I have received e-mails from the e-print
archive, during 1999 and 2000 relating to submission that I made,
and here are some quotes from those messages:
"... Ordinarily we require an appropriate institutional affiliation,
so if you are trying to submit from a public access provider,
please use instead (for example) your university account. ..."
"... Ordinarily we prefer that submitters without institutional
affiliation submit to gen-ph@xxx.lanl.gov ...".
There is language on the e-print archive website saying
"... We reserve the right to reject any inappropriate submissions.
This archive should not be used to distribute non-technical information
(such as news or information about political causes of potential special
interest to the academic community).
Submissions of an abstract without an accompanying paper
will be rejected outright. ...".
Other than the above, I don't know of any stated policies of
the e-print archive about who can or cannot put up papers
on which archives, but my knowledge is incomplete and maybe
such things do exist somewhere.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 01:18:45 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.159] (ip159.innerx.net [38.179.176.159])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 54017370D4; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:19:40 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102801b5ff198399ea@[38.179.176.157]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 01:18:17 -0400
To: quiroz@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: papers disappear and reappear
Cc: galois4@home.com, castro@ts.infn.it, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu,
tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: G_-!!`!&!!Tk)e93K`!!
Alex, thank you for your message, which said:
============================================================
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
To: galois4@home.com
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: About the Phys archives preprints in colaboration with castro!
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:11:32 +0200
From: Quiroz Buelvas Alex Guillermo (Ghirardi) <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
Dear ALEX , CARLOS and TONY,
I am writing to all you because yesterday 1 October aroud 20:00 Italian time!
I was doing a search for Castro in the Physics archives, and I was surprised
That I didn't find the two papers on the Black hole entropy. I immediatly
called Carlos Castro and I notified him about the removal of the papers in the
archives. We did a new search several times over the FULL archives but the two
papers were not there!
I am really worry what is happening to Carlos, because today the papers are
again on the web! this means that there are PLAYING with him! I think this
situation is becoming exagerate and dangerous not only for him but for all the
scientific community!
If you need my testimony I am willing to send you an official letter.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Quiroz
Department of Theoretical Physics
Trieste University
Strada Costiera 11
Miramare-Grignano
TRIESTE - ITALY
===========================================================
There is a possible explanation
of those events that may be more positive:
----------------
Paul Ginsparg may have, on his own, removed some papers of
Carlos Castro from the archives on or about 1 October 2000;
Around that time, Carlos Handy may have been in communication
with higher-ranking people at the archives; and
The higher-ranking people may have decided that Paul Ginsparg was
acting improperly, and then have taken action to put the papers
of Carlos Castro back on the archives.
----------------
Maybe at some future time we will know exactly what happened and why.
Tony 3 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 10:12:05 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f120.hotmail.com [209.185.131.183])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF73E371AD
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 07:20:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 04:20:10 -0700
Received: from 140.105.31.36 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:20:10 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [140.105.31.36]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com
Cc: mahecha@fisica.udea.edu.co
Subject: Fwd: RE: Review of NUCPHB 7713
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:20:10 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F120NQptgFrYILo00009581@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2000 11:20:10.0991 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4AF47F0:01C02D2B]
X-UIDL: RP4!!CEmd9jAh!!/i^d9
Dear Alex, Carlos and Tony and Jorge :
Hereby I am forwarding the positive message from Elsevier publishers in
Holland ( who are the publishers of NPB ) where they were asking me to send
them the flopy disk with the file of the acccepted paper by their 2
referees. Notice thae November date.
As time passed by it is when H. Ooguri interfered and stopped the paper from
being published. NPB never deny that we guessed it was H. Ooguri.
Ooguri was a member of the Editorial Board who had expressed a great
interest in this paper ...This is a total contradiction with the excuse of
NPB not to publish the paper at the end. It was that
Ooguri ( we guess it was he ) complained that the paper was of
"no physical interest" , was " poorly written" and the analyis
was " superficial...."
Why was he greatly interested in this paper if it had no phyiscal interest ?
It is bullshit.
It is clear that he was blocking this paper for what it may have been his
own professional interests.
I will be faxing you a copy of the NPB response to Dr. Handy's complaint
where they ( NPB) admit, by their own words, of having looked into the Los
Alamos web and found my papers on the New Relativity not main stream and
outlandish.
The New Relativity papers had NOTHING to do with the paper accepted by the 2
referees of NPB !
It was since NPB looked into my papers on the New Relativity on Los Alamos
that my problems STARTED. It is very clear to me that they are the ones who
contacted Gisnparg to censor my work on the hep-th archives.
Here is the e-mail of Elsevier Publishers of NPB :
Best wishes
Carlos Castro Perelman
..............................
>From: "Spijker, Pien van (ELS)" <p.spijker@elsevier.nl>
>To: "'Carlos Perelman'" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
>Subject: RE: Review of NUCPHB 7713
>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:01:12 +0100
>
>Dear Professor Castro Perelman,
>
>Please send us the floppy disk with the file.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>Pien van Spijker
>
_____________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 11:26:06 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.176] (ip176.innerx.net [38.179.176.176])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 59AED371A4; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:15:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b5ff9bef9064@[38.179.176.159]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:14:23 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com, castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: H. Ooguri
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
quiroz@ts.infn.it
X-UIDL: ,W]!!&cDe9OWS!!;W-e9
Carlos, you say that it is clear to you that H. Ooguri "... was blocking
this paper for what it may have been his own professional interests. ...".
I wondered about who was Hirosi Ooguri, so I checked on the web and
found some things, including:
There is a 1995 biography of him at URL
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0215/profile.html
Here are some excerpts:
"... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
in the physics department [at Berkeley]. He arrived ... after four years
as associate professor at Kyoto University's Research Institute
for Mathematical Sciences.
A theoretical physicist,
Ooguri's specialty is quantum gravities and string theories- ...
... Ooguri ... also attracted by the theoretical physics group
at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ...
... Before even finishing his PhD at the University of Tokyo in 1989,
Ooguri was invited to spend a year at Princeton's Institute
for Advanced Studies.
He spent 1989-91 at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute
and 1992-93 at Harvard's Lyman Physics Lab. ...
... In Japan, he says,
faculty are always addressed as professor
and their status is almost priestly. ...".
My impression of Ooguri from material on the web is that:
1 - He is devoted to superstring theory, a theory that
is criticized by Carlos Castro (and by me, and also
by Richard Feynman, who said of superstring theory
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
and is in the wrong direction. ...)".
2 - He is well-connected with the Berkeley-Harvard-etc superstring
establishment, which includes Paul Ginsparg.
3 - His Japanese cultural background is very authoritarian,
so he expects that anyone disagreeing with "authority",
including his "authority" as Full Professor of Superstring Theory,
should be put down and silenced.
As to Hirosi Ooguri's career since the 1995 biography,
I saw that in September 2000 he submitted,
from address <ooguri@theory.caltech.edu>
the paper hep-th/0009181,
so
it seems that Ooguri may now be at Caltech,
which also has a large contingent of superstring people.
Tony 3 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 11:31:54 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.176] (ip176.innerx.net [38.179.176.176])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 1F28237086; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:31:11 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b5ffab3827d6@[38.179.176.176]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:29:50 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com, castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: typo error in message about H. Ooguri
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
quiroz@ts.infn.it
X-UIDL: 4($!!M6@!!F`a!!9N2!!
Among the typo errors in my previous message about H. Ooguri was the line
"... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
The line should have been
"... Today [1995] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
My apologies for that typo error, and any others that may be there.
Tony 3 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:15 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2649A371CF
for <tsmith@gmail.innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id NAA66026; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:45:48 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:45:48 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010031745.NAA66026@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Subject: Important
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
X-UIDL: ]eM!!UGC!!OC$"!FO`d9
I an sending you a copy of an e-mail note to Geoffrey West, who
is acting as group leader for T-8 in Los Alamos.
Tell me what you think. Don't send it to Castro, since I don't
want to betray the confidential nature of our interactions, yet.
Thanks.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:15 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FF8D37082
for <tsmith@gmail.innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id NAA66028 for tsmith@gmail.innerx.net; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:26 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:46:26 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010031746.NAA66028@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
X-UIDL: b$5!!j"@!!R[Ne9MD(!!
>From handyman Tue Oct 3 13:42:46 2000
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id NAA50390; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:41 -0400
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 13:42:41 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman>
Message-Id: <200010031742.NAA50390@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: gbw@lanl.gov
Subject: Important
Cc: handyman
Status: R
Hi Geoffrey, sorry that things did not work out w.r.t. NSF proposal.
I have been in contact with Fred Cooper who indicated that you are the boss,
since he is away at Boston College.
There is a controversial (anti-string) scientist who we have supported for
some time as a ``permanent visiting scientist''. He is very colorful,
knowledgeable, and (I believe ) smart. His name is Carlos Castro.
He and his colleagues have been having a hard time with Ginzparg vis a vis
getting their articles on the HEP LANL archives.
Ginzparg said to Fred that Castro is a ``Nut''. In addition, he accused him
of having posted a paper with a false institutional affiliation by one of
his colleagues (M. Al Naschie) who is the chief editor of the Journal of
Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals (published by Elsevier). In any case, this
guy (Naschie) has listed his affiliation, for many years (and at many
public conferences), as DAMTP - Cambridge. Castro had no knowledge of the
legitimacy of this, and he and his colleagues removed the instituational
affiliation from their submited archive paper within the two day deadline
demanded by Ginzparg.
I recognize that Castro is controversial, and many people don't follow his
papers because of all the intricacies of his arguments. However, he has
colleagues, with whom I have talked, who are very sober and conventional.
I believe that much of his work stimulates the mind and is an honest
effort with no obvious technical fallacies. Of course, if a well documented
technical declination of his work is forthcoming, by a group of unbiased
physicists, then there is nothing more to say.
However, it does appear that the people that are giving him a hard time are
those that feel threatened by his anti-string posture. I have indicated to him
that in my opinion, the LANL archives are Federally funded, and he, Castro,
through our institutional affiliation, has the right to publish his articles there.
Ginzparg told Cooper that if my school continues to back Castro up, we will
be black listed from accessing the archives. In addition, he indicated that
I should be embarrased for supporting Castro. In the absence of any cogent,
well documented, rebuttal of his papers, I cannot subscribe to Ginzparg's
perspective. In fact, he has opened himself up for legal charges on many
fronts. By coincidence, one of the guys conversant with what is going on is
both a lawyer and a physicist (Tony Smith). Castro is a U.S. citizen, and
in the absence of any proof of the sort I have indicated, deserves to have
his papers respected in the manner indicated by the archives guidelines.
The situation is becoming nastier. I am appealing, on a personal level, that
in light of all the above, that you or Fred, allow Castro and his colleagues
to publish their works in the archives. I do not appreciate Ginzparg's
presumptuous attitude. Castro is prepared to take this matter to all and
any higher authority, including DoE, and minority members of Congress.
Again, without any hard evidence to the contrary, as outlined above,
I can only support him (Castro) in this.
Sincerely,
Carlos Handy
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:25 2000
Return-Path: <galois4@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAED8370E8
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001003184611.MRQN27630.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:46:11 -0700
Message-ID: <39DA2935.269D8A9A@home.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:45:10 -0700
From: Alex Granik <galois4@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>,
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
"handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>,
Alex Quiroz <quiroz@ts.infn.it>
Subject: Re: H. Ooguri
References: <l03102800b5ff9bef9064@[38.179.176.159]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: j`=!!#W&!!F)Ce91J]d9
It is rather interesting what Mr.Ooguri would have said about a work submitted
by R.Feynman with the words quoted by you
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
I think all this super string stuff is crazy
and is in the wrong direction. ...".
I surmise that with all this Japanese reverence for authority he would have
held his mouth shut and only bowed.
SPeaking on scientific merits of the (super) string theory, why would not it
be more natural ( assuming a universal character of statistical laws) to
assume that there is infinity of dimensions which could not be reached by our
observations. The resulting ( measurable) number of dimensions emerges as the
averaged quantity , analogous to another statistical quantities ( say,
temperature, pressure, etc.). I do not see here anything more outlandish than
"compactification" of 26-dimensional string.
We are stuck with the dogma on the level of mediaeval church dogmas. Anyone
who is questioned the wisdom of it, is proclaimed not a heretic, bur an
outcast, promoting "outlandish" ideas, who is immediately excommunicated from
the holy church of string worshippers.
Thanks God that they don't have political power! Otherwise Carlos would be in
an asylum ( or killed, as it happened in this Century Utopian Societies: red
and brown Socialism).
Thank you for a very thorough, careful, and thoughtful approach to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Carlos, you say that it is clear to you that H. Ooguri "... was blocking
> this paper for what it may have been his own professional interests. ...".
>
> I wondered about who was Hirosi Ooguri, so I checked on the web and
> found some things, including:
>
> There is a 1995 biography of him at URL
>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0215/profile.html
>
> Here are some excerpts:
>
> "... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
> in the physics department [at Berkeley]. He arrived ... after four years
> as associate professor at Kyoto University's Research Institute
> for Mathematical Sciences.
> A theoretical physicist,
> Ooguri's specialty is quantum gravities and string theories- ...
> ... Ooguri ... also attracted by the theoretical physics group
> at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ...
> ... Before even finishing his PhD at the University of Tokyo in 1989,
> Ooguri was invited to spend a year at Princeton's Institute
> for Advanced Studies.
> He spent 1989-91 at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute
> and 1992-93 at Harvard's Lyman Physics Lab. ...
> ... In Japan, he says,
> faculty are always addressed as professor
> and their status is almost priestly. ...".
>
> My impression of Ooguri from material on the web is that:
>
> 1 - He is devoted to superstring theory, a theory that
> is criticized by Carlos Castro (and by me, and also
> by Richard Feynman, who said of superstring theory
> "... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
> I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
> and is in the wrong direction. ...)".
>
> 2 - He is well-connected with the Berkeley-Harvard-etc superstring
> establishment, which includes Paul Ginsparg.
>
> 3 - His Japanese cultural background is very authoritarian,
> so he expects that anyone disagreeing with "authority",
> including his "authority" as Full Professor of Superstring Theory,
> should be put down and silenced.
>
> As to Hirosi Ooguri's career since the 1995 biography,
> I saw that in September 2000 he submitted,
> from address <ooguri@theory.caltech.edu>
> the paper hep-th/0009181,
> so
> it seems that Ooguri may now be at Caltech,
> which also has a large contingent of superstring people.
>
> Tony 3 Oct 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 03 15:38:26 2000
Return-Path: <DavPaulson@aol.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E43BC371E0
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from DavPaulson@aol.com
by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.24.) id k.ca.aeb5b68 (16790);
Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: DavPaulson@aol.com
Message-ID: <ca.aeb5b68.270b8703@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 15:01:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Oxmoor offer
To: tsmith@innerx.net
Cc: CHTedhinds@cs.com, wadhinds@mint.net, RAChase@aol.com,
hinds@transport.com, KSA@dunn-carney.com, windrg@ctel.net,
DJD@dunn-carney.com, BGM@dunn-carney.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
X-UIDL: 3UQ!!_c9e9>]k!!,eLd9
It's a little difficult to ascertain how the earnest money offer will look
once drafted. However, if the offer includes those terms that you proposed,
it would be looked upon favorably. The buyer may not want to tie up $500,000
for six months or close in that same time frame, but any thing is possible.
Here are some general questions that I have. Either you or others may
respond.
1. Does the proposed price come close to perceived fair market value?
2. Should the seller pay only one-half of the real estate commision because
we are unrepresented? Should the sellers have their own agent who is
reponsible to them and gets the 5% compensation for that?
3. Does anyone on the seller's side expect a 5% fee (however it's described)?
Dave Paulson
From ???@??? Wed Oct 04 20:25:27 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECD137012
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:35:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id TAA52376; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:34:34 -0400
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:34:34 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010042334.TAA52376@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: message
X-UIDL: ^>;!!B6@e9Lk7e9YAgd9
Thanks for the reply. At this point, I don't to
jeopardize any friendly resolution to this problem.
Thanks again.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:13 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f293.hotmail.com [209.185.130.232])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2635B3709B
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 5 Oct 2000 11:32:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:32:05 -0700
Received: from 193.2.6.183 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:32:04 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [193.2.6.183]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, galois4@home.com, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
Subject: Re: H. Ooguri
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 15:32:04 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F293y0GbD5hpIG50000b347@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2000 15:32:05.0265 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A51F810:01C02EE1]
X-UIDL: Y+?!!=Hjd9DnN!!1?0!!
Status: RO
Dear Tony ( and Alex and Carlos ) :
Thank you so much for your research and e-mails. I am in Slovenia for a week
giving some talks on the New Relativity.
I fax Carlos Handy and Alex Granik copies of the e-mail letter sent by NPB
where they said that they had looked up at my work on the New Relativity and
found it outlandish.
>From that moment on is when I began to have problems with Gisnparg.
The paper accepted by the 2 referees of NPB had nothing to do with the new
Relativity papers but with sigma models on Anti De Sitter Spaces; the large
N limit, Chern-Simons p-branes and W geometry.
H. Ooguri was the only Editorial Board member of NPB, at the time, who
had worked on this topic of Large N limit and Anti De Sitter spaces.
It is for this reason that I believed it was he who acted
unprofessionaly in preventing my paper from being published after the 2
referees had accepted it. NPB never denied that we knew it was
Ooguri.
It was very nasty for NPB to do what they did. Firstly , they never answered
the questions that Carlos Handy raised to them. And , in addition, to add
insult to injury, they themselves admitted looking into my work on the New
Relativity and found it outlandish.
Since afterwards the problems with Ginspartg began it does not take to be
Sherlock Holems to deduce that they contacted Ginsparg and
warned him that Castro was posting " nonsense " on the hep-th archives.
This was Ginsparg's motivation to look into my work and to censor and
suppress it from that moment on. Otherwise why would Ginsparg care ? they
are hundreds of papers sent every single day to the web ?
I hope thi helps in explaining why Ginsparg decided to go after me.
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos Castro Perelman
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
>To: perelmanc@hotmail.com, castro@ts.infn.it
>CC: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com,
>quiroz@ts.infn.it
>Subject: H. Ooguri
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 11:14:23 -0400
>
>Carlos, you say that it is clear to you that H. Ooguri "... was blocking
>this paper for what it may have been his own professional interests. ...".
>
>I wondered about who was Hirosi Ooguri, so I checked on the web and
>found some things, including:
>
>There is a 1995 biography of him at URL
>
>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1995/0215/profile.html
>
>Here are some excerpts:
>
>"... Today [1005] at 32, Ooguri is the youngest full professor
>in the physics department [at Berkeley]. He arrived ... after four years
>as associate professor at Kyoto University's Research Institute
>for Mathematical Sciences.
>A theoretical physicist,
>Ooguri's specialty is quantum gravities and string theories- ...
>... Ooguri ... also attracted by the theoretical physics group
>at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory ...
>... Before even finishing his PhD at the University of Tokyo in 1989,
>Ooguri was invited to spend a year at Princeton's Institute
>for Advanced Studies.
>He spent 1989-91 at the University of Chicago's Enrico Fermi Institute
>and 1992-93 at Harvard's Lyman Physics Lab. ...
>... In Japan, he says,
>faculty are always addressed as professor
>and their status is almost priestly. ...".
>
>
>My impression of Ooguri from material on the web is that:
>
>1 - He is devoted to superstring theory, a theory that
> is criticized by Carlos Castro (and by me, and also
> by Richard Feynman, who said of superstring theory
> "... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...
> I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
> and is in the wrong direction. ...)".
>
>2 - He is well-connected with the Berkeley-Harvard-etc superstring
> establishment, which includes Paul Ginsparg.
>
>3 - His Japanese cultural background is very authoritarian,
> so he expects that anyone disagreeing with "authority",
> including his "authority" as Full Professor of Superstring Theory,
> should be put down and silenced.
>
>
>As to Hirosi Ooguri's career since the 1995 biography,
>I saw that in September 2000 he submitted,
>from address <ooguri@theory.caltech.edu>
>the paper hep-th/0009181,
>so
>it seems that Ooguri may now be at Caltech,
>which also has a large contingent of superstring people.
>
>
>Tony 3 Oct 2000
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:19 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f232.hotmail.com [209.185.131.49])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E9A3732C
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:01:05 -0700
Received: from 193.2.6.52 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:01:05 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [193.2.6.52]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, galois4@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Cc: mahecha@fisica.udea.edu.co, quiroz@ts.infn.it
Subject: Annals of Physics Cyber-night-mare
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:01:05 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F232i95HfqR77bi0000c86b@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2000 17:01:05.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E6015D0:01C03080]
X-UIDL: 6nS!!TZ%!!oX,e9I_/!!
Today is the SECOND day I have been bombarded with more than 30 e-mails from
people ALL over the world who cannot understand why Annals of Physics
assigned ALL of them the name " castro " and my
Atlanta e-mail. These people are going crazy. E-mails are being sent over
and over and over again to them...
Could you please contact Annals of Physics and explain to them what mess I
am in because by some " error " hundreds of persons are getting copies of
the sample e-mail I am including below.
Please NOTICE the LAST lines of the e-mail:
" You are currently subscribed as castro@ctsps.cau.edu "...."
to see that " someone " is using my name " castro " and my Atlanta e-mail as
the Universal name and e-mail assigned to ALL of these people ???
Is this related to the Los Alamos problem ?????
Here you have another representative copy of the 20-30 e-mails received
today...how many more will I receive in the next days ?
Again, please FOCUS on the LAST lines of this e-mail sent to another person
whom I do not know. They assign him the name of " castro " and my e-mail in
Atlanta !!!!
Is this an ERROR from Annals of Physics ?????
Notice that this e-mail is sent to Annals of Physics telling them that they
are very confused as to why Annals of Physics will assign them the name of
"castro" and my Atlanta e-mail address ????
Ciao
Carlos
>From: "Joan Dargan" <joan_dargan@harcourt.com>
>Reply-To: "Annals of Physics" <annals@lists.academicpress.com>
>To: "Annals of Physics" <annals@lists.academicpress.com>
>Subject: FREE Access to Abstracts for Annals of Physics
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:57:25
>
>Special 40 Year Anniversary Issue
>ANNALS of PHYSICS
>FREE access to abstracts available
>
>The Annals of Physics, published by Academic Press, was founded forty years
>ago in response to a need for a general journal in which intelligibility
>was emphasized and constraints on length were relaxed. It was hoped that
>the consequent freedom would lead to the publication of papers developing
>important ideas in sufficient detail to make them accessible to the
>informed reader. The special 40th anniversary issue includes examples of
>the quality, importance, and diversity of papers published in the Annals.
>
>FREE access to abstracts available at
>http://www.idealibrary.com/links/toc/aphy/281/1
>
>Interested in submitting to Annals? Author instructions available at
>http://www.academicpress.com/www/journal/ph/phifa.htm
>
>To receive Tables of Contents for all future issues of Annals, with free
>access to abstracts, register for IDEALAlert
> http://www.academicpress.com/ideal-alert
>
>ANNALS of PHYSICS
>Quality and Leadership in Physics Publishing
>http://www.academicpress.com/aop
>
>IDEAL (R) is a registered trademark of Harcourt, Inc.
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to annals as: castro@ctsps.cau.edu
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>leave-annals-164749K@lists.academicpress.com
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:24 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40EF373B3
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 17:34:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001007213407.RYIH6495.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Sat, 7 Oct 2000 14:34:07 -0700
Message-ID: <39DF9680.92A9C488@home.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:32:48 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Al Pisano <appisano@me.berkeley.edu>
Cc: Al Shaw <alshaw@etch-eshop.innerx.net>,
"Al. Van der Merwe" <avanderm@odin.cair.du.edu>,
Aleksandr Simonic <support@winedt.com>,
Alex Quiroz <quiroz@ts.infn.it>,
"Alfred Shroeder( for Carlos)" <a_schoeller@hotmail.com>,
Alik Markus <markus@CS.bgu.ac.il>,
Anita Riccobono <jricco@attglobal.net>,
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>,
"Collett, Alison (ELS)" <AS.Collett@elsevier.co.uk>,
Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@email.com>,
Dodik <Guthrie@Mary.Fordham.EDU>,
George Chapline <Chapline1@LLNL.gov>,
"H. John Caulfield" <hjc@dubois.fisk.edu>,
"handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>,
Igor Rafalovich <zmk1@psu.edu>, Jason Harlow <jharlow@uop.edu>,
Jim Hetrick <hetrick@uop.edu>,
John caulfield <jcaulfield@vallnet.com>,
John Johnson <jjohn@redstone.army.mil>,
Jorge Manecha <mahecha@ictp.trieste.it>,
Kirk McDonald <mcdonald@puphed.princeton.edu>,
Lee Tajbaksh <ltaj@euler.ME.Berkeley.edu>,
Mail Administrator <Postmaster@home.com>,
Nathan Zingg <zingvent@gte.net>,
Net Tech Support <support@ix.netcom.com>,
Papool Chadhouri <papool@jps.net>, Paul Heller <heller@greencrd.com>,
Ralph Lewis <ralph.lewis@dartmouth.edu>,
Sheila Slavin <slavin@me.berkeley.edu>,
Stan Berger <SABerger@maya.me.berkeley.edu>,
"Tony,the lawyer" <tsmith@innerx.net>,
Vince Panico <Vpanico@vms1.cc.uop.edu>, Yura G <y_granik@yahoo.com>,
Yura Vizitei <"Yura Vizitei"@home.com>,
Yura Vizitei <Vizitei@aol.com>
Subject: Change of address
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: *p@e9`Qp!!g^!!!U0?!!
My E-mail address has changed to
agranik1@home.com
My E-mail did not work for 2 days.
Alex
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 00:44:33 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f196.hotmail.com [209.185.130.106])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4393A482
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 08:59:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sun, 8 Oct 2000 05:59:28 -0700
Received: from 209.239.68.213 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:59:28 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [209.239.68.213]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: agranik1@home.com, handyman@aol.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: Letter and Mohammed
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:59:28 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F196r960lsCXcS60000d8e5@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2000 12:59:28.0708 (UTC) FILETIME=[97D38040:01C03127]
X-UIDL: '<"!!M)'e9h+bd99=Y!!
Dear Carlos and Alex and Tony :
Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter that Ginsparg wrote to
Carlos ; the letter that Carlos wrote to G. West, etc....everything to Prof.
Mohhamed el Naschie. His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
ALL information pertaining to this sad incident.
Do not worry, West and Coper are not on trial here . It is US.
Do not FORGET that Mohammed's name is been SMEARED all over the WEB .
His FAX in England is :
011-44-1932-866-245
Phone : 011-44-1932-862-988
Thank you .
About the Annals of Physics. I got today about 40 e-mails with the same
story. Everybody has been assigned my name castro and my Atlanta e-mail.
This is just a cruel bad joke from a computer hacker who may know Ginsparg .
I cannot prove it but WHY will Annals of Phyiscs have MY name
in the first place. I never subscribed to it; never sent a paper to them;
etc....
It seems that I am at the bottom of the list and everybody is going crazy
with a bombardment of e-mails from Annals of Phyiscs assigning them the
subscription.
Best wishes
Carlos
>From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
>To: Al Pisano <appisano@me.berkeley.edu>
>CC: Al Shaw <alshaw@etch-eshop>, "Al. Van der Merwe"
><avanderm@odin.cair.du.edu>, Aleksandr Simonic <support@winedt.com>, Alex
>Quiroz <quiroz@ts.infn.it>, "Alfred Shroeder( for Carlos)"
><a_schoeller@hotmail.com>, Alik Markus <markus@CS.bgu.ac.il>, Anita
>Riccobono <jricco@attglobal.net>, "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)"
><castro@ts.infn.it>, Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>, "Collett,
>Alison (ELS)" <AS.Collett@elsevier.co.uk>, Dimi Chakalov
><dchakalov@email.com>, Dodik <Guthrie@Mary.Fordham.EDU>, George Chapline
><Chapline1@LLNL.gov>, "H. John Caulfield" <hjc@dubois.fisk.edu>,
> "handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>, Igor Rafalovich
><zmk1@psu.edu>, Jason Harlow <jharlow@uop.edu>, Jim Hetrick
><hetrick@uop.edu>, John caulfield <jcaulfield@vallnet.com>, John Johnson
><jjohn@redstone.army.mil>, Jorge Manecha <mahecha@ictp.trieste.it>, Kirk
>McDonald <mcdonald@puphed.princeton.edu>, Lee Tajbaksh
><ltaj@euler.ME.Berkeley.edu>, Mail Administrator <Postmaster@home.com>,
> Nathan Zingg <zingvent@gte.net>, Net Tech Support
><support@ix.netcom.com>, Papool Chadhouri <papool@jps.net>, Paul Heller
><heller@greencrd.com>, Ralph Lewis <ralph.lewis@dartmouth.edu>, Sheila
>Slavin <slavin@me.berkeley.edu>, Stan Berger
><SABerger@maya.me.berkeley.edu>, "Tony,the lawyer" <tsmith@innerx.net>,
> Vince Panico <Vpanico@vms1.cc.uop.edu>, Yura G <y_granik@yahoo.com>,
> Yura Vizitei <"Yura Vizitei"@home.com>, Yura Vizitei <Vizitei@aol.com>
>Subject: Change of address
>Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 14:32:48 -0700
>
>My E-mail address has changed to
>
> agranik1@home.com
>
>My E-mail did not work for 2 days.
>
>
> Alex
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 14:52:37 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.130] (ip130.innerx.net [38.179.176.130])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 55B45370AC; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:41:15 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b608fb92b781@[38.179.176.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:40:29 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Mohammed el Naschie matter
Cc: agranik1@home.com, handyman@aol.com, tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: 12f!!ZG)e9i!A!!+j9!!
Carlos (Castro), you said in e-mail:
"... Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter
that Ginsparg wrote to Carlos [Handy];
the letter that Carlos[Handy] wrote to G. West,
etc....
everything to Prof. Mohhamed el Naschie.
His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
ALL information pertaining to this sad incident. ...".
I am not sure that is the best way to proceed.
Although I am a lawyer, I am only actively licensed in
the state of Georgia, USA, so anything I say should be
regarded as personal opinion and/or advice with respect
to my understanding of Georgia law only.
There seem to be at least two people who may have been damaged here:
----------------------------------------------
1 -
---
Carlos Castro,
who was for a time restricted in his access to the Los Alamos archives,
and who may have been called a "nut" by Ginsparg in some
communication, and who has been inconvenienced by the Annals of Physics
matter.
I hope the Los Alamos archive access mattterhas been resolved,
so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.
As to being called a "nut" by Ginsparg, I am not sure that
has been pubilcized very widely, and, even if it has,
maybe Ginsparg is entitled to his opinion that I am a "nut",
that Carlos (either one or both) is/are a "nut",
or anybody else is a "nut", so I am not sure that litigation
about that would be a good idea.
As to the Annals of Physics matter, if it has caused inconvenience
and if it can be proven to be a deliberate act intended to cause
damage, maybe it could be the basis of litigation,
but I don't have any facts about who caused it,
and I don't think that Carlos Handy has any such facts, either,
so the search for facts about that should be directed somewhere else.
----------------------------------------------
2 -
---
Mohammed el Naschie,
whose institutional affiliation with DAMPT was removed from
at the paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
If he is (and has been at all material times) affiliated with DAMPT,
then I think that he has been damaged by that removal,
because when I read those papers without a DAMPT affiliation,
and compare with earlier papers on the web such as at URL
http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
which do list a DAMPT affiliation,
I think that he is no longer affiliated with DAMPT,
and (since DAMPT is a prominent institution with a good reputation)
I may not take his paper as seriously as I might if I thought
he were still affiliated with DAMPT.
Therefore, I do think that litigation might be in order with
respect to the removal of the DAMPT affiliation of Mohammed el Naschie
on the paper at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
particularly since that abstract page explicitly statee:
"... The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed ...".
If litigation is to be pursued,
it seems to me that relevant material evidence would include
any and all communications (e-mail or otherwiee) relative to
the process by which the affiliation was orded to be removed,
which may have been an order issued by some person or persons
connected with the Los Alamos e-print archives.
Such communications may involve individuals such as Ginsparg, Cooper,
and maybe others who are in some way part of the Los Alamos e-print archives.
It seems to me that the best evidence would be the communications
among such individuals at the Los Alamos e-print archives,
and that
the most direct way to get that best evidence would be by request
(or by legal discovery procedure if request does not work)
directed to
the Los Alamos e-print archive itself
and to
the individuals that are part of the Los Alamos e-print archive.
It also seems to me that any copies of communications that
Carlos Handy or anybody else
(who is not a part of the Los Alamose e-print archive
beyond his role as a contributor from time to time)
may or may not have would not be the best evidence,
and
might only be useful in the event that the Los Alamos e-print archive
and/or its individuals are not accurately responsive to requests
or legal discovery proceedings that seek copies of such communications.
Further,
third parties such as Carlos Handy may feel that as a matter of
courtesy they should not be the ones to disclose copies of
communications from others, if the others themselves can provide
the copies directly.
Therefore,
it is my opinion that requests and legal discovery should first be
directed to the Los Alamos e-print archives and its individuals,
and
only if that does not produce satisfactory results
then
requests and/or legal discovery procedures
should be directed to third parties such as Carlos Handy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I primarily communicate by e-mail,
and not by fax or by telephone (I do not even have a fax machine),
and since the only addresses you gave for Mohammed el Naschie
are fax and phone,
I am asking that you, Carlos (Castro), please send a copy of
this (however you want to do it, maybe by printing it out and faxing it)
to Mohammed el Naschie and/or his lawyers.
If you will send me e-mail addresses for them,
I will be happy to communicate with them directly by e-mail.
Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 19:31:13 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6DC20374DE
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:54:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:56:38 -0700
Message-ID: <39E3834C.6B6D5CF2@home.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:59:56 -0700
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>,
Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mohammed el Naschie matter
References: <l03102800b608fb92b781@[38.179.176.146]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: D2/!!_jD!!RdUd9(n"e9
Hi, Tony,
1) I am not a lawyer at all, but it seems to me ( from a logical point of view)
that your proposal is the best way to proceed.
Actually, whoever is going to initiate the litigation procedure would require an
internal correspondence ( memos, E-mail, etc.) of the archives pertinent to the
above incident. This will make clear who really was instrumental in giving an
"order" to proceed with the ultimatum to remove Prof. M.El Naschie affiliation.
2) You write
"I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it."
I am not so sure about that since our ( Carlos's and mine) last experience with
our latest paper indicated that we have been effectively banished from both
hep-th
and
quant-ph
archives. This is despite of the fact that we complied with their ultimatum to
remove prof. M.El Naschie affiliation.
In fact, I have received this ultimatum ( issued on 8/13/00) only on 8/17/00 nd
therefore was able to surrender to it on the same day, that is on 8/17/00. The
latter, formally, was past due, since the "ultimatum" expiration date was
8/15/00. This could be held against us. But once again, I have a proof that I
have received the notification about the archives demand only on 8/17/00.
Moreover, the E-mail from the archives acknowledged our compliance and did not
pursue the threat to ban us from the respective archive ( hep-th).Therefore it
comes as a complete surprise that in fact we have been banned from the archives (
without further warning).
Sorry to burden you with this details, but since you are under the impression
that this problem has been satisfactorily resolved, I have decided to provide
some additional information.
Best regards,
Alex Granik
Tony Smith wrote:
> Carlos (Castro), you said in e-mail:
>
> "... Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter
> that Ginsparg wrote to Carlos [Handy];
> the letter that Carlos[Handy] wrote to G. West,
> etc....
> everything to Prof. Mohhamed el Naschie.
> His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
> ALL information pertaining to this sad incident. ...".
>
> I am not sure that is the best way to proceed.
>
> Although I am a lawyer, I am only actively licensed in
> the state of Georgia, USA, so anything I say should be
> regarded as personal opinion and/or advice with respect
> to my understanding of Georgia law only.
>
> There seem to be at least two people who may have been damaged here:
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 1 -
> ---
>
> Carlos Castro,
> who was for a time restricted in his access to the Los Alamos archives,
> and who may have been called a "nut" by Ginsparg in some
> communication, and who has been inconvenienced by the Annals of Physics
> matter.
>
> I hope the Los Alamos archive access mattterhas been resolved,
> so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.
>
> As to being called a "nut" by Ginsparg, I am not sure that
> has been pubilcized very widely, and, even if it has,
> maybe Ginsparg is entitled to his opinion that I am a "nut",
> that Carlos (either one or both) is/are a "nut",
> or anybody else is a "nut", so I am not sure that litigation
> about that would be a good idea.
>
> As to the Annals of Physics matter, if it has caused inconvenience
> and if it can be proven to be a deliberate act intended to cause
> damage, maybe it could be the basis of litigation,
> but I don't have any facts about who caused it,
> and I don't think that Carlos Handy has any such facts, either,
> so the search for facts about that should be directed somewhere else.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> 2 -
> ---
>
> Mohammed el Naschie,
> whose institutional affiliation with DAMPT was removed from
> at the paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
> If he is (and has been at all material times) affiliated with DAMPT,
> then I think that he has been damaged by that removal,
> because when I read those papers without a DAMPT affiliation,
> and compare with earlier papers on the web such as at URL
> http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
> which do list a DAMPT affiliation,
> I think that he is no longer affiliated with DAMPT,
> and (since DAMPT is a prominent institution with a good reputation)
> I may not take his paper as seriously as I might if I thought
> he were still affiliated with DAMPT.
>
> Therefore, I do think that litigation might be in order with
> respect to the removal of the DAMPT affiliation of Mohammed el Naschie
> on the paper at
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
> particularly since that abstract page explicitly statee:
> "... The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed ...".
>
> If litigation is to be pursued,
> it seems to me that relevant material evidence would include
> any and all communications (e-mail or otherwiee) relative to
> the process by which the affiliation was orded to be removed,
> which may have been an order issued by some person or persons
> connected with the Los Alamos e-print archives.
>
> Such communications may involve individuals such as Ginsparg, Cooper,
> and maybe others who are in some way part of the Los Alamos e-print archives.
>
> It seems to me that the best evidence would be the communications
> among such individuals at the Los Alamos e-print archives,
> and that
> the most direct way to get that best evidence would be by request
> (or by legal discovery procedure if request does not work)
> directed to
> the Los Alamos e-print archive itself
> and to
> the individuals that are part of the Los Alamos e-print archive.
>
> It also seems to me that any copies of communications that
> Carlos Handy or anybody else
> (who is not a part of the Los Alamose e-print archive
> beyond his role as a contributor from time to time)
> may or may not have would not be the best evidence,
> and
> might only be useful in the event that the Los Alamos e-print archive
> and/or its individuals are not accurately responsive to requests
> or legal discovery proceedings that seek copies of such communications.
>
> Further,
> third parties such as Carlos Handy may feel that as a matter of
> courtesy they should not be the ones to disclose copies of
> communications from others, if the others themselves can provide
> the copies directly.
>
> Therefore,
> it is my opinion that requests and legal discovery should first be
> directed to the Los Alamos e-print archives and its individuals,
> and
> only if that does not produce satisfactory results
> then
> requests and/or legal discovery procedures
> should be directed to third parties such as Carlos Handy.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since I primarily communicate by e-mail,
> and not by fax or by telephone (I do not even have a fax machine),
> and since the only addresses you gave for Mohammed el Naschie
> are fax and phone,
>
> I am asking that you, Carlos (Castro), please send a copy of
> this (however you want to do it, maybe by printing it out and faxing it)
> to Mohammed el Naschie and/or his lawyers.
>
> If you will send me e-mail addresses for them,
> I will be happy to communicate with them directly by e-mail.
>
> Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 10 19:51:12 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.146] (ip146.innerx.net [38.179.176.146])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 75B5137329; Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:50:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102802b609589cf826@[38.179.176.146]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:49:17 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: e-print archive access
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, perelmanc@hotmail.com
X-UIDL: <m;e9l-H!!5GGe931gd9
Alex, when I said
"... "I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.",
you replied
"... I am not so sure about that ...".
Have you checked (by trying to submit a paper to hep-th or quant-ph)
since the middle of last week, about 4 or 5 October 2000 ?
I suspect that maybe things may not have been straightened out
more than a few days before then,
but that maybe last week would be when they may have been straightened out.
My guess as to the timetable is based on the times at which
papers seemed to disappear from the archive (around 1 October 2000)
and the times when the papers seemed to reappear (a day or so later)
plus adding 2 or 3 days for bureacratic systems like the archives
to reach a state close to equilibrium.
If you still, as of now (10 October 2000), are denied access
to hep-th or quant-ph, then there may still be a problem with
access to the Los Alamos e-print archives,
and maybe litigation will be needed to resolve the issues.
Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Wed Oct 11 22:51:06 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f120.hotmail.com [209.185.131.183])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB92371FF
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 12:59:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 09:59:16 -0700
Received: from 195.29.173.226 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:59:16 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [195.29.173.226]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, agranik1@home.com
Cc: a_schoeller@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Law suit
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:59:16 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F120tcUpZ68pIEy00000bdd@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Oct 2000 16:59:16.0896 (UTC) FILETIME=[97180200:01C033A4]
X-UIDL: 8$^d9Go,e9^@+!!`'"e9
Dear Tony :
Thank you so much for your advice. I understand that Carlos Handy is in a
bind here because of his friendship with West and Cooper.
Whether or not Mohammed's lawyers decide to file a law suit I am entitled to
a copy of the official letter that Gisnparg wrote to Carlos Handy. I am the
one who is being accused. It is my right to ask Carlos for a copy of this
letter. Irrespective of whether a law suit may take place or not.
It will be almost impossible for me to get any grant money from the NSF, let
alone a permament position from now on. You must not forget that it was NPB
who contacted Paul Ginsparg ( of course, we have no way of proving it ..)
and complained that the New Relativity is outlandish, etc...Ginsparg is just
one piece of this intellectual " massacre " as Alex Granik put it.
Mohamed's journal has recently received pressure to prevent my work from
being published. Who knows how many other journals have been coerced as
well.....
By the way, Mathematical Reviews asked prof. Matej Pavsic to review my
paper that Mohammed published in his journal :
Hints of a New Relativity principle from p-brane QM
and it was very positive. Prof. Pavsic invited me to Slovenia to give talks.
Mathematical Reviews dedicate themselves to review published papers in
journals. I was actually invited to become a reviewer myself. I declined.
Mohhamed's integrity has been tarnished, let alone the scandal in Cambridge,
and the implications for the future of his journal, etc.....
Who is going to support me in the future ?
What journal will publish papers on the New Relativity besides Foundations
of Physics and Mohamed's journal or David Finkelstein's journal ( assuming
he is happy with the submitted paper on Black Hole Entropy )
I don' t wish a law suit because of the potential financial benefits for
myself but because this people need a lesson to be taught. Imagine how many
people have been destroyed and will be destroyed by this inquisitorial
attitude of " pocket Napoleons " like Ginsparg.
Another thing that I want to stress : The New Relativity is NOT anti-string.
On the contrary it is an EXTENSION of it. Unfortunately, Carlos Handy did
not rephrase it in the correct way to his letter to G. West. I want to make
sure things are absolutely clear so no misunderstandings occur among us.
I understand that there is a very deep conflict of interest for Carlos Handy
becuase of his friendship with the bosses at Los Alamos, but this thing is
now beyond his hands.
I appreciate your advice . Let us have the lawyers see the letter from
Gisnparg to Carlos Handy and we can then see how to proceed in a reasonable
and civilized way. But one cannot stand still doing nothing.
Whatever happens, I just want to say that I have contacted a journalist from
the New Yorker and the editor of a leading Colombian newspaper has spoken to
a close friend of mine about publishing this story. The APS has been
notified as well by the Colombian Association of Physics about this
incident.
I don't want you to think that I want to get as much publicity as possible
from this sad incident but one has to stand up to injustice.
The most likely thing that the bosses of Los Alamos will do is to damp this
problem into oblivion. I honestly think they are not interested in justice.
They are interested in avoiding any sort of potential problems for
themselves and for their institutions.
I have two close friends of mine in Helsinki and Austria who wisely have
stated many times :
The system is not interested in justice, but only in due process.
Both of them have suffered horrible injustices from the cruel scientific
establishment and they regret NOT having gone to the press to let the world
know their story.
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos
>From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
>To: perelmanc@hotmail.com
>CC: agranik1@home.com, handyman@aol.com, tsmith@innerx.net
>Subject: Mohammed el Naschie matter
>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:40:29 -0400
>
>Carlos (Castro), you said in e-mail:
>
>"... Could you PLEASE FAX as SOON as possible the letter
>that Ginsparg wrote to Carlos [Handy];
>the letter that Carlos[Handy] wrote to G. West,
>etc....
>everything to Prof. Mohhamed el Naschie.
>His lawyers in the USA and in England have requested
>ALL information pertaining to this sad incident. ...".
>
>
>I am not sure that is the best way to proceed.
>
>Although I am a lawyer, I am only actively licensed in
>the state of Georgia, USA, so anything I say should be
>regarded as personal opinion and/or advice with respect
>to my understanding of Georgia law only.
>
>There seem to be at least two people who may have been damaged here:
>
>----------------------------------------------
>1 -
>---
>
>Carlos Castro,
>who was for a time restricted in his access to the Los Alamos archives,
>and who may have been called a "nut" by Ginsparg in some
>communication, and who has been inconvenienced by the Annals of Physics
>matter.
>
>I hope the Los Alamos archive access mattterhas been resolved,
>so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.
>
>As to being called a "nut" by Ginsparg, I am not sure that
>has been pubilcized very widely, and, even if it has,
>maybe Ginsparg is entitled to his opinion that I am a "nut",
>that Carlos (either one or both) is/are a "nut",
>or anybody else is a "nut", so I am not sure that litigation
>about that would be a good idea.
>
>As to the Annals of Physics matter, if it has caused inconvenience
>and if it can be proven to be a deliberate act intended to cause
>damage, maybe it could be the basis of litigation,
>but I don't have any facts about who caused it,
>and I don't think that Carlos Handy has any such facts, either,
>so the search for facts about that should be directed somewhere else.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>2 -
>---
>
>Mohammed el Naschie,
>whose institutional affiliation with DAMPT was removed from
>at the paper at
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
>If he is (and has been at all material times) affiliated with DAMPT,
>then I think that he has been damaged by that removal,
>because when I read those papers without a DAMPT affiliation,
>and compare with earlier papers on the web such as at URL
>http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/fis96/fis96abstr.htm
>which do list a DAMPT affiliation,
>I think that he is no longer affiliated with DAMPT,
>and (since DAMPT is a prominent institution with a good reputation)
>I may not take his paper as seriously as I might if I thought
>he were still affiliated with DAMPT.
>
>Therefore, I do think that litigation might be in order with
>respect to the removal of the DAMPT affiliation of Mohammed el Naschie
>on the paper at
>http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
>particularly since that abstract page explicitly statee:
>"... The incorrect affiliation of M. S. El Naschie was removed ...".
>
>If litigation is to be pursued,
>it seems to me that relevant material evidence would include
>any and all communications (e-mail or otherwiee) relative to
>the process by which the affiliation was orded to be removed,
>which may have been an order issued by some person or persons
>connected with the Los Alamos e-print archives.
>
>Such communications may involve individuals such as Ginsparg, Cooper,
>and maybe others who are in some way part of the Los Alamos e-print
>archives.
>
>It seems to me that the best evidence would be the communications
>among such individuals at the Los Alamos e-print archives,
>and that
>the most direct way to get that best evidence would be by request
> (or by legal discovery procedure if request does not work)
>directed to
>the Los Alamos e-print archive itself
>and to
>the individuals that are part of the Los Alamos e-print archive.
>
>It also seems to me that any copies of communications that
>Carlos Handy or anybody else
> (who is not a part of the Los Alamose e-print archive
> beyond his role as a contributor from time to time)
>may or may not have would not be the best evidence,
>and
>might only be useful in the event that the Los Alamos e-print archive
>and/or its individuals are not accurately responsive to requests
>or legal discovery proceedings that seek copies of such communications.
>
>Further,
>third parties such as Carlos Handy may feel that as a matter of
>courtesy they should not be the ones to disclose copies of
>communications from others, if the others themselves can provide
>the copies directly.
>
>Therefore,
>it is my opinion that requests and legal discovery should first be
>directed to the Los Alamos e-print archives and its individuals,
>and
>only if that does not produce satisfactory results
>then
>requests and/or legal discovery procedures
>should be directed to third parties such as Carlos Handy.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Since I primarily communicate by e-mail,
>and not by fax or by telephone (I do not even have a fax machine),
>and since the only addresses you gave for Mohammed el Naschie
>are fax and phone,
>
>I am asking that you, Carlos (Castro), please send a copy of
>this (however you want to do it, maybe by printing it out and faxing it)
>to Mohammed el Naschie and/or his lawyers.
>
>If you will send me e-mail addresses for them,
>I will be happy to communicate with them directly by e-mail.
>
>
>Tony 10 October 2000
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Thu Oct 12 10:42:00 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27714370B9
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001012042101.OHTT5267.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:21:01 -0700
Message-ID: <39E53BEF.CAFE61CC@home.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:20:00 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: e-print archive access
References: <l03102802b609589cf826@[38.179.176.146]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: )2\d9o:md93cIe9OCWd9
Tony,
UNfortunately, I did not have anything new to submit to the archives. My doubts
stem from the fact that when I tried to cross-reference our "ill-fated" paper
"shoved" from hep-th to the physics archive , I received the same answer all
the time:
" This paper is inappropriate for cross-referencing"
This experience prompted me to be rather skeptical about their willingness to
place anything under my name in the hep-th( quant-ph) archives.
I did not try lately to cross-reference the above paper, but somehow I know
that this will be rejected.
Thanks for your support.
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex, when I said
> "... "I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
> so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.",
>
> you replied
> "... I am not so sure about that ...".
>
> Have you checked (by trying to submit a paper to hep-th or quant-ph)
> since the middle of last week, about 4 or 5 October 2000 ?
>
> I suspect that maybe things may not have been straightened out
> more than a few days before then,
> but that maybe last week would be when they may have been straightened out.
>
> My guess as to the timetable is based on the times at which
> papers seemed to disappear from the archive (around 1 October 2000)
> and the times when the papers seemed to reappear (a day or so later)
> plus adding 2 or 3 days for bureacratic systems like the archives
> to reach a state close to equilibrium.
>
> If you still, as of now (10 October 2000), are denied access
> to hep-th or quant-ph, then there may still be a problem with
> access to the Los Alamos e-print archives,
> and maybe litigation will be needed to resolve the issues.
>
> Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Thu Oct 12 10:42:01 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C96D370B9
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001012042800.PACF5267.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:28:00 -0700
Message-ID: <39E53D93.4A3D0080@home.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:26:59 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: e-print archive access-addendum
References: <l03102802b609589cf826@[38.179.176.146]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: _R%e9C3'!!YMOd9:<N!!
Tony,
I was right: I tried to cross-list our paper to hep-th archives and received an
already standard and predictable reply
"physics/0009088 is not appropriate for cross-listing to hep-th"
How is this for their change of mind?
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex, when I said
> "... "I hope the Los Alamos archive access matter has been resolved,
> so I hope there will be no litigation with respect to it.",
>
> you replied
> "... I am not so sure about that ...".
>
> Have you checked (by trying to submit a paper to hep-th or quant-ph)
> since the middle of last week, about 4 or 5 October 2000 ?
>
> I suspect that maybe things may not have been straightened out
> more than a few days before then,
> but that maybe last week would be when they may have been straightened out.
>
> My guess as to the timetable is based on the times at which
> papers seemed to disappear from the archive (around 1 October 2000)
> and the times when the papers seemed to reappear (a day or so later)
> plus adding 2 or 3 days for bureacratic systems like the archives
> to reach a state close to equilibrium.
>
> If you still, as of now (10 October 2000), are denied access
> to hep-th or quant-ph, then there may still be a problem with
> access to the Los Alamos e-print archives,
> and maybe litigation will be needed to resolve the issues.
>
> Tony 10 October 2000
From ???@??? Thu Oct 12 01:28:30 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.137] (ip137.innerx.net [38.179.176.137])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 2431E371E8; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:29:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <l03102800b60aeebaca2b@[38.179.176.151]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:28:13 -0400
To: perelmanc@hotmail.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: Re: Law suit
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, agranik1@home.com
X-UIDL: SY~e91SX!!dh_d9!?4!!
Carlos (Castro), thanks for explaining to me that you, also,
are contemplating a law suit. I had mistakenly thought that
only Mohammed el Naschie was contemplating a law suit.
Will you and Mohammed el Naschie be using the same lawyers ?
As to your possible law suit, you say that you would
not sue "... because of the potential financial benefits ..."
but
might sue "... because ... people need a lesson to be taught ...".
It is my opinion (and only my personal opinion, and, as I have
said before, I am only an active lawyer in Georgia) that
it is important in filing any law suit to have clearly in mind:
1 - who is to be sued; and
2 - what relief is sought.
As to who is to be sued,
are you thinking about Ginsparg individually, NPB, NSF,
and/or other individuals or institutions ?
As to what relief you might seek:
If you want money damages,
then exactly how do you propose to calculate money damages ?
If you want parts of the grant/publication/referee/tenure system
to be reformed,
then exactly what reforms do you propose ?
Do you propose to file the law suit only for yourself,
or as a class action for all people who have similar grievances ?
You should be aware that any success you may have
under the present system
(such as you describe when you say
"... Mathematical Reviews asked prof. Matej Pavsic to review my
paper that Mohammed published in his journal :
Hints of a New Relativity principle from p-brane QM
and it was very positive.
Prof. Pavsic invited me to Slovenia to give talks. ...")
might be used against you by defenders of the present system
to show that you have not been seriously damaged,
because you are even now successful under the existing system.
Also, you should be aware that if you ask for significant money
or significant change in the existing system
then your law suit might be strenuously resisted by defenders
of the existing system, some of whom have a lot of time and money
to spend on litigation,
and that it might require a lot of your time and money over
a period of several years to get such a law suit adjudicated.
One other warning: you say that you have
"... contacted a journalist from the New Yorker
and
the editor of a leading Colombian newspaper has spoken to
a close friend of mine about publishing this story. ...".
I agree with you that fair and accurate publicity about the
situation might be favorable to you,
but
please be aware that journalists are not always honest with
those they interview about possible stories,
and that journalists may be part of the existing system,
more interested in protecting it than in changing it.
For a hypothetical example,
it is possible that a reporter
might say to you "It is a disgrace that you have been treated
so badly by all these people. If you give me the full details,
I will write an article that will show the world the faults of
the system, so that no one else will ever have to endure such mistreatment.".
Then,
that same reporter might write a story describing
"the paranoid behavior of yet another crackpot who thinks
that he alone knows the secrets of the universe.
Fortunately, the world of physics has checks and balances
to perserve the integrity of scientific journals and
electronic archives. One such courageous gatekeeper is
the brilliant Harvard graduate, Paul Ginsparg, who invented
the e-print archives that is instrumental in keeping physicists
of the world up-to-date on the latest developments in their field.".
Consider, for example, a science journalist for a major newspaper.
Such a person must write a lot of articles about science,
and may not know enough (or be diligent enough) to make
independent inquiry into the substantive facts of each article.
Therefore, such a person might become dependent on a number
of professors in nearby universities for advice about
what subjects might be timely and what to say about them.
Such a person would then be dependent on the professors,
and very reluctant to write anything unfavorable to the professors.
The above questions and comments are not intended to be
things that you should answer and reply to me,
but
are only points that I think that you should consider.
They are in line with my general attitude that nobody should
file a law suit without thinking carefully about the
consequences of their actions.
Of course, whatever decision you make is yours to make,
and
whatever you decide to do, I wish you well.
Tony 12 October 2000
PS - You say "... The New Relativity is NOT anti-string.
On the contrary it is an EXTENSION of it ...".
If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it.
Personally,
I AM opposed to what is now called superstring theory,
insofar as it purports to be a theory of physics,
and
I repeat that I agree with Richard Feynman's quotation
in the book Superstrings, by Davies and Brown (Cambridge 1988, pp. 194-195):
"... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense!
... I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
and is in the wrong direction.
... I don't like it that they're not calculating anything.
... why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are?
All these numbers ... have no explanations in these string theories -
absolutely none! ... ".
From ???@??? Sun Oct 15 10:41:28 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E31E3724E
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 07:48:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001012154414.XWJY26920.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:44:14 -0700
Message-ID: <39E5DC0E.C565578E@home.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:43:10 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>,
Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Law suit
References: <l03102800b60aeebaca2b@[38.179.176.151]>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-UIDL: h5$!!nAXd9ibmd95il!!
I totally agree with you about pitfalls of any law suit. In a majority of cases
( if not in all) the only winning side ( I am sorry to say that) is a lawyer. One
of our friends characterize this in a very precise sentence: the legal process is
interested only in a procedure , not in justice to be done.
It absolutely clear that the other side have ALL the means of both defense and
offense at their disposal. And these means are inexhaustible. No wonder this is
called the establishment, which also involves the media. To think that a
journalist ( even the one writing about science) would go against the grain is to
hope for too much. My experience with the journalist show that as a rule they are
a bunch of truth-twisting scoundrels. The ones who went into scientific
journalism are usually those who failed in pursuing independent scientific
career, and therefore the are slavishly seeking advice and favors from the
scientific authorities. Example, look at the glowing paper about Maldacena in one
of the issues of the Newsweek,nothing more than an abject hagiography.
The time of Galileo, Newton, and Einstein is passé: we are living in the age of
much smaller people who in addition are strongly connected with the "money bag" (
NSF, Lab grants, various grants). The latter is also a symbiotic relation: the
same people who give grants also receive them. In other words, we are dealing
with the old boys network. There are a few publications ( e.g., prof. M.N. and
D.F's journals) which managed to publish what is considered "outlandish" ( not
very outlandish) heresies, but they are in a tiny minority. The rest finds it
very convenient and profitable not to rock the boat.
What to do under this circumstances? Even ( which is improbable) one is going to
win the law suit, the establishment has so many dirty tricks up their sleeve that
this is going to be turned into a Pyrrhean victory. I think that we have to look
for the way which will be less damaging for Carlos by showing his humility. There
should be the way to somehow placate the people who are so strongly aligned
against him. Maybe a direct contact with F.Cooper who at the present (
unfortunately) is temporarily not in the Lab. Let this commotion subside, wait
for F.Cooper to return to his post, and then contact him asking for a quiet
restoration of the right to deposit the papers to the appropriate archives.
As I wrote to you, the expulsion from both hep-th and quant-ph still holds. I
personally contemplate a phone call to the Director of the Lab telling him about
this not as an incident but rather some kind of misunderstanding: e-mail reached
me with a delay, and I could not comply with their demand when they required it.
Therefore I am surprised that I lost my privilege to deposit papers to hep-th and
quant-ph archives.
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Carlos (Castro), thanks for explaining to me that you, also,
> are contemplating a law suit. I had mistakenly thought that
> only Mohammed el Naschie was contemplating a law suit.
> Will you and Mohammed el Naschie be using the same lawyers ?
>
> As to your possible law suit, you say that you would
> not sue "... because of the potential financial benefits ..."
> but
> might sue "... because ... people need a lesson to be taught ...".
>
> It is my opinion (and only my personal opinion, and, as I have
> said before, I am only an active lawyer in Georgia) that
> it is important in filing any law suit to have clearly in mind:
>
> 1 - who is to be sued; and
>
> 2 - what relief is sought.
>
> As to who is to be sued,
> are you thinking about Ginsparg individually, NPB, NSF,
> and/or other individuals or institutions ?
>
> As to what relief you might seek:
>
> If you want money damages,
> then exactly how do you propose to calculate money damages ?
>
> If you want parts of the grant/publication/referee/tenure system
> to be reformed,
> then exactly what reforms do you propose ?
>
> Do you propose to file the law suit only for yourself,
> or as a class action for all people who have similar grievances ?
>
> You should be aware that any success you may have
> under the present system
>
> (such as you describe when you say
> "... Mathematical Reviews asked prof. Matej Pavsic to review my
> paper that Mohammed published in his journal :
> Hints of a New Relativity principle from p-brane QM
> and it was very positive.
> Prof. Pavsic invited me to Slovenia to give talks. ...")
>
> might be used against you by defenders of the present system
> to show that you have not been seriously damaged,
> because you are even now successful under the existing system.
>
> Also, you should be aware that if you ask for significant money
> or significant change in the existing system
> then your law suit might be strenuously resisted by defenders
> of the existing system, some of whom have a lot of time and money
> to spend on litigation,
> and that it might require a lot of your time and money over
> a period of several years to get such a law suit adjudicated.
>
> One other warning: you say that you have
> "... contacted a journalist from the New Yorker
> and
> the editor of a leading Colombian newspaper has spoken to
> a close friend of mine about publishing this story. ...".
>
> I agree with you that fair and accurate publicity about the
> situation might be favorable to you,
> but
> please be aware that journalists are not always honest with
> those they interview about possible stories,
> and that journalists may be part of the existing system,
> more interested in protecting it than in changing it.
>
> For a hypothetical example,
> it is possible that a reporter
> might say to you "It is a disgrace that you have been treated
> so badly by all these people. If you give me the full details,
> I will write an article that will show the world the faults of
> the system, so that no one else will ever have to endure such mistreatment.".
> Then,
> that same reporter might write a story describing
> "the paranoid behavior of yet another crackpot who thinks
> that he alone knows the secrets of the universe.
> Fortunately, the world of physics has checks and balances
> to perserve the integrity of scientific journals and
> electronic archives. One such courageous gatekeeper is
> the brilliant Harvard graduate, Paul Ginsparg, who invented
> the e-print archives that is instrumental in keeping physicists
> of the world up-to-date on the latest developments in their field.".
>
> Consider, for example, a science journalist for a major newspaper.
> Such a person must write a lot of articles about science,
> and may not know enough (or be diligent enough) to make
> independent inquiry into the substantive facts of each article.
> Therefore, such a person might become dependent on a number
> of professors in nearby universities for advice about
> what subjects might be timely and what to say about them.
> Such a person would then be dependent on the professors,
> and very reluctant to write anything unfavorable to the professors.
>
> The above questions and comments are not intended to be
> things that you should answer and reply to me,
> but
> are only points that I think that you should consider.
> They are in line with my general attitude that nobody should
> file a law suit without thinking carefully about the
> consequences of their actions.
>
> Of course, whatever decision you make is yours to make,
> and
> whatever you decide to do, I wish you well.
>
> Tony 12 October 2000
>
> PS - You say "... The New Relativity is NOT anti-string.
> On the contrary it is an EXTENSION of it ...".
> If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it.
>
> Personally,
> I AM opposed to what is now called superstring theory,
> insofar as it purports to be a theory of physics,
> and
> I repeat that I agree with Richard Feynman's quotation
> in the book Superstrings, by Davies and Brown (Cambridge 1988, pp. 194-195):
> "... I do feel strongly that this is nonsense!
> ... I think all this superstring stuff is crazy
> and is in the wrong direction.
> ... I don't like it that they're not calculating anything.
> ... why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are?
> All these numbers ... have no explanations in these string theories -
> absolutely none! ... ".
From ???@??? Thu Oct 12 16:05:33 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f292.hotmail.com [209.185.130.231])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCA637263
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 14:18:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:18:48 -0700
Received: from 195.29.173.226 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:18:48 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [195.29.173.226]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: lawyers, Ron Perelman, India.....
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 18:18:48 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F292rZjuy0RhP2d00001c4f@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Oct 2000 18:18:48.0593 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDA8F010:01C03478]
X-UIDL: 2V-!!i^Zd9`"`d9W1_d9
Dear Carlos and Tony :
Thank you for your advice. True, one has to be level headed about these
things and not be frivolous.
You may e-mail Mohhamed El Naschie through his secetary who will fax him
your e-mail, So I suggest to directly fax and phone him in England :
fax : 011-44-1932-866-245
phone : 011-44-1932-862-988
and explain to him that we want to do things in a very professional fashion,
and for this reason , you are requesting a formal petition from Mohammed's
lawyers to have a copy of the Ginsparg's letter. I have a feeling that Fred
Cooper is a really nice person. So he and G. West should not be involved in
his sad incident at all.
What we want is to find out if Cambridge really complained or it was just
Gisnparg alone who could not locate Mohamed's e-mail address and jumped into
the conclusion that Mohamed was not in Cambridge.
If somebody really complained we need to know who it was so Mohammed lawyers
could deal with this false accusation in England.
Ginsparg would be sued by myself, and not NPB.
Ginsparg is the one directly responsible for the removal of the papers. The
story with NPB is a sound reason as to why Gisnparg targeted me in the
beginning.
Ginsparg may be a Harvard graduate, etc...but he has not published much in
the last 9 years.
Financial compensation will be requested for the damage to my career and
reputation, etc....and for potential damages to Mohamed's journal and his
reputation, etc....
Mathematical Reviews is a positive sign that Mohammed can show to people who
are pressuring him not to publish my work. However, this does not put food
on my table, money into my bank account, etc....
The negative image of my wok does ruin my chances of attaining grants,
money, stable position, etc....Mathematical Review is not going to give me
money nor a job.
About journalists...Tony is right. One has to be very careful.
Speaking about science, the New Relativity so far has achieved :
1- Show why we live in 3 + 1 dimensions. Four is an average dimension and
the signature is 3+1.
2- Furnish a truly backround independent formulation of string, M theory,
quantum gravity. Spacetime is not a thing : It is a PROCESS which emerges
from C-space.
3- Propose a solution to the cosmological constant problem
4- Provide with a theoretical framework behind the orgins of the string
uncertainty relations. These were postulated but never derived from scratch
as I have done for the Foundations of Physics paper.
5- Derive the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy area relation and its
logarithmic corrections from first principles.
We are working in proving rigourously how Einstein's General Relativity is
an effective theory obtained in the long distance ( low energy limit ). In
particular how the black hole geometry is the classical limit of the more
fundamental quantum theory underlying black holes.
6- The above quantum theory is consistent with the extensions of QFT based
on Braided Hopf Quantum Clifford Algebras that yield ordinary QFT in the
long distance limit.
Relations with p-Adic QM and number theory are currently under
investigation.
7- You may ask Mohamed to send you his recent work pertaining the origins of
particle masses, charges, etc....derived directly from his work on
Cantorian-Fractal spacetime. So Feynman could no longer say that all this is
nonsense.
8- Bring fractals, information theory, chaos, non-equilibium statisical
mechanics , nonlinear dynamics, self organization processes, critical
phenomena, complexity, etc... into this unified framework.
And more....
I hope this helps
One last thing, I wold like to ask Carlos is :
1- Meeting wih Ronald Perelman
2- Plane ticket to the Conference in India. Several Nobel prize winners will
be attending and I am invited to give a talk on the New Relativity.
If you see the announcement of the Frontiers of Physics Conference in
Hydebarad, India, in December, you will see Mohamed's affiliation as that
of Cambridge. Mohammed is one of the organizers. For this reason I am
invited.
Send a fax to Mohammed or call him in England.
Best wishes
Carlos
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Sun Oct 15 15:39:46 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.81])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0E53744E
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 14:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001015185211.JBNO5267.femail1.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:52:11 -0700
Message-ID: <39E9FCA1.2AFCCFC1@home.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 11:51:13 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: archive access
References: <l03102800b60b7e707a7f@[38.179.176.137]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 7$8!!%6#e9adN!![g(e9
Tony, HI!
Thanks a lot for your letter. I really like your style: very
business-like w/o unnecessary emotions obscuring the essence of the
problem. I will try to answer in kind.
1) You wrote
"or whether it is only the general robot that bans everybody from cross
listing from the general physics part of the physics archive
to other archives such as hep-th."
The answer is: . Carlos Castro found a few papers with a lesser
relevance to hep-th topic have been CROSS LISTED to hep-th archive. He
wrote to me on 9/24/00 " I just saw with my own eyes that you can
cross-list papers from physics to the hep-th".
On the other hand, our paper ( now in physics/arch) was initially placed
on hep-th , but never appeared since it was immediately removed ( we
have ven been given a respctive number and a password , all in vain).
All my efforts to cross-list it failed because of the flat refusal of
the robot to do this.
2) I have successfully cross-listed our paper hep/th-0004152 to gr-qc
archive. I am not sure whether it will stay cross-listed, but at the
moment the process went smoothly.
3) I sent quite a few letters of protest to www-admin@arXiv.org
about moving our previous paper now at physics archive ( physics0008222)
to the appropriate archive ( hep-th) , but I did not receive any reply
whatsoever. My letters have been simply ignored.
This is the situation how it stands today. I think that their major ire
is against Carlos, and whenever anyone is doing something with him ,
that person is also black-balled ( maybe not forever).
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex, thanks for letting me know about the cross-listing problem.
>
> I would like for you to try two more things,
> to see whether you yourself are still banned,
> or whether
> it is only the general robot that bans everybody from cross-listing
> from the general physics part of the physics archive
> to other archives such as hep-th.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> First, I think that you should try to crosslist your paper at
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0004152
> Why we live in 3 Dimensions
>
> which paper says "... within the framework of the new relativity
> the cosmological constant problem is nonexistent ...",
>
> That paper should be appropriate for the archive gr-qc
> on general relativity and quantum cosmology.
>
> If you try to cross-list that paper, which is now on hep-th
> and not the general physics part of the physics archive,
> and
> if you are then denied permission to cross-list,
> then
> you will know for sure that it is you personally that is banned,
> and that it is not a general robot that is the problem.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> Second, I think that you should send an e-mail to
>
> www-admin@arXiv.org
>
> and tell them that you want the paper at
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0009088
> On the quantum aspects of the logarithmic corrections
> to the black hole entropy
>
> to be moved to the hep-th archives,
> explainining in that e-mail that you consider the
> placement of the paper in the physics archives to
> be an incorrect action taken by the archives,
> and not by you.
>
> (I am assuming that the paper was submitted by you and/or the
> other authors to an archive different from physics,
> and that the archive itself moved it to physics. Please let
> me know if my understanding is incorrect, and if it is incorrect,
> then please disregard this second suggested thing to do.)
>
> They may take a few days to reply to such a message from you.
> If you do not get a satisfactory reply,
> you will know that there is still a problem,
> and
> then
> in that case, it might be that litigation might be necessary
> to resolve the matter.
>
> Tony 12 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 17 17:05:35 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.168] (ip168.innerx.net [38.179.176.168])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id B08DD373B1; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:06:04 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b6126d633445@[38.179.176.168]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:04:35 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Ginsparg, physics, etc.
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: KZl!!6^'!!L+S!!h#Be9
Alex, you said
"... PS. I got a copy of the letter sent by P.Ginsparg
to F.Cooper in regard to C.C. ...".
If you could, I would appreciate it if you would e-mail me a copy.
as I have never seen it (even though I have talked directly personally
to C.H., I did not press to see a copy of it,
so all my information about it is hearsay,
and the actual text might be interesting.)
Also,
I would like very much to discuss with you how the Clifford structure
might be related to statistical structures. Perhaps statistical weights
might be related to measures in symmetric spaces, and maybe to some
other mathematically determinable things.
Probably, I need to reread your papers in more detail to try to
get more nearly up to speed on the statistical approach.
Which papers do you suggest would be the best starting places for me ?
Tony 17 October 2000
PS- My e-mail servers have been somewhat unstable over the last few
days, so maybe that would account for why my message seemed to
appear a day or so late.
From ???@??? Wed Oct 18 23:45:30 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD97374ED
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:15:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001019031512.YMTM11792.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:15:12 -0700
Message-ID: <39EE66F5.25447E9D@home.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:13:57 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: Ginsparg, physics, etc.
References: <l03102801b6126d633445@[38.179.176.168]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: e'7e9K[6!!YIR!!'j/!!
Tony,
Sorry for the delay with answering your letter.
1) First, I asked Carlos a permission to send you a copy of the letter (
since it concerned him) and he gave his permission. Therefore I am sending
you this copy. Please, read and find for yourself how an arrogance and
crudeness of a "servant" could exceed the one exhibited by a "master".
The letter is addressed to F.Cooper who was a "boss" of Ginsparg but at the
present is on a sabbatical at Boston University. Here is the letter ( and I
retain all the orphography):
"Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:47:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Paul Ginsparg <ginsparg@lanl.gov>
To: fcooper@physics.bc.edu
CC: simeon@mmm.lanl.gov, schwander@horse.lanl.gov
Subject: Re: Castro Clarification
a) castro is an obvious nut and all of his papers are abject nonsense
b) castro had a paper with a co-author whose affiliation was forged as
DAMT=P (Cambridge), and we received a complaint directly from DAMTP. he
was given a deadline to correct or remove the affiliation, or lose
submission privileges. he CHOSE not to comply.
conclusion: castro is more than welcome to publish in conventional journals
we don't have time for him here, and he is fortunate that he is permitted
in
the General Physics category.
>'( this is the phrase from F.Cooper's letter to Ginsparg) Carlos Handy at
Clark Atlanta was a former post-doc of mine and this
> person's boss. If you could handle this with some sensitivity, I would
> appreciate that.'
note that if clark university will insist on this, then we will cease to
regard
clark university as a responsible accredited institution. (we rely on
institutional affiliation for effective endorsement. note most of his
recent
activity has been from italy so we have no idea why clark univ is even
involved at this point.) you should explain to your former postdoc Carlos
Handy that he is the one who should be embarrassed at this point.
we wouldn't care except this one idiot has wasted more time than the
average ten idiots... i hope this is sensitive enough
pg"
How do you like this? Compare it with the critique directed by a really big
man, Feynman at the proponents of the string theory.
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex, you said
> "... PS. I got a copy of the letter sent by P.Ginsparg
> to F.Cooper in regard to C.C. ...".
>
> If you could, I would appreciate it if you would e-mail me a copy.
> as I have never seen it (even though I have talked directly personally
> to C.H., I did not press to see a copy of it,
> so all my information about it is hearsay,
> and the actual text might be interesting.)
>
> Also,
> I would like very much to discuss with you how the Clifford structure
> might be related to statistical structures. Perhaps statistical weights
> might be related to measures in symmetric spaces, and maybe to some
> other mathematically determinable things.
>
> Probably, I need to reread your papers in more detail to try to
> get more nearly up to speed on the statistical approach.
> Which papers do you suggest would be the best starting places for me ?
>
> Tony 17 October 2000
>
> PS- My e-mail servers have been somewhat unstable over the last few
> days, so maybe that would account for why my message seemed to
> appear a day or so late.
From ???@??? Thu Oct 19 00:03:01 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.151] (ip151.innerx.net [38.179.176.151])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 239D7377A4; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b6141fab0f1e@[38.179.176.133]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 00:02:36 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: letter, etc.
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: NlXd9QnRd9n9@e9e#3e9
Alex, thank you for sending me the copy of the Ginsparg letter.
I am amazed at its combination of ignorance and arrogance,
particularly
since it seems to be a reply to Cooper's letter to Ginsparg
which asked that Ginsparg to "... handle this with some sensitivity ...".
I would like very much to see the reaction of the physics establishment
if Mohamed el Naschie decides to pursue legal action and
brings the matter into the public arena.
Please let me know if and when that might occur.
Tony 19 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 24 14:20:33 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AAA375B1
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA32687;
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:58:12 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010241558.RAA32687@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, agranik1@home.com, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu,
a_schoeller@hotmail.com, boedo@apollo.gat.com
Subject: Re: legal costs and temporal costs
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:48:57 EDT."
<l03102801b61a5b98066d@[38.179.176.166]>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:58:12 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: 5k6e9C?d!!)Ye!!CSj!!
Dear Tony :
Thank you very much for your wonderful assesment of the " due process "
involved in these sort of litigations.
I recall the H-bomb incident in the Bikini atoll where the wind suddenly changed
direction and contaminated the inhabitants of the island. For the past 50 years
they have been trying to sue the US government for the catastrophic effects
caused on the population and their descendents : cancer, genetic defects,
deformities, premature death...you name it.
In view of what you are telling me the next to best solution is then to let the
Press and the American Civil Liberties Union do the fighting for all of us. I
know that journalists can twist the truth, ...etc for their own glory and self
interests but there doees not seem much option left for us.
Justice is made for the rich. O.J Simpson is free and some innocent poor black
guy who could not hire a top attorney fries at the electric chair.
Alex is right when he quoted his friend ( my friend also ) :
" The system is not interested in justice, only in due process " .
Since you believe that the legal suit will cost in the million of dollars order
of magnitude then we should sue for ten times as much , therefore the law suit
should be for 10 million dollars or more.
I will contact Mohhamed and tell him that if we sue we should sue for 10 million
dollars or more.
In the meantime I will speak to the journalist of the New Yorker. I will also
notify my Hollywood producer friends and tell them what the situation is and see
what they suggest. Whether to contact their buddies at the New York Times and LA
Times or not.
Mohammed is definitive SOLVENT enough to pay for such a costly litigation. But
obviously we do not wish to end up like the Bikini atoll inhabitants who will
have to wait for " Judgement day " in order to be to paid with heavenly
currency.....not of much use then.
But whatever happens we are not going to let Gisnparg off the hook and give him
a slap on the wrist.
Best wishes
Thank you for your advice
Carlos
From ???@??? Tue Oct 24 14:20:35 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF6B13776E
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001024162701.ZXLP25860.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>;
Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:27:01 -0700
Message-ID: <39F5B81D.A27625B2@home.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:26:05 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>,
Tony <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: legal costs and temporal costs
References: <200010241558.RAA32687@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: &RBe9R+W!!X<A!!?#)e9
Dear Carlos,
I have another way to handle this situation, based on some personal experience:
Let one branch of the Federal Government ( the Justice Dept) sue another branch (
The Lab, which is a part of DOE). This goes like follows: in the Dept. of Justice
there are some department(s) which deals with discrimination. Since Carlos is a
minority he can claim that his rights have been violated by these unfair practices.
In this turn of events, the whole business becomes free of charge for the
litigant(s). I also know for sure that the lawyers in this specific dept. are
extremely aggressive and ambitious.
What do you think about such an approach?
Best wishes to both of you,
Alex
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" wrote:
> Dear Tony :
>
> Thank you very much for your wonderful assesment of the " due process "
> involved in these sort of litigations.
>
> I recall the H-bomb incident in the Bikini atoll where the wind suddenly changed
> direction and contaminated the inhabitants of the island. For the past 50 years
> they have been trying to sue the US government for the catastrophic effects
> caused on the population and their descendents : cancer, genetic defects,
> deformities, premature death...you name it.
>
> In view of what you are telling me the next to best solution is then to let the
> Press and the American Civil Liberties Union do the fighting for all of us. I
> know that journalists can twist the truth, ...etc for their own glory and self
> interests but there doees not seem much option left for us.
>
> Justice is made for the rich. O.J Simpson is free and some innocent poor black
> guy who could not hire a top attorney fries at the electric chair.
> Alex is right when he quoted his friend ( my friend also ) :
>
> " The system is not interested in justice, only in due process " .
>
> Since you believe that the legal suit will cost in the million of dollars order
> of magnitude then we should sue for ten times as much , therefore the law suit
> should be for 10 million dollars or more.
>
> I will contact Mohhamed and tell him that if we sue we should sue for 10 million
> dollars or more.
>
> In the meantime I will speak to the journalist of the New Yorker. I will also
> notify my Hollywood producer friends and tell them what the situation is and see
> what they suggest. Whether to contact their buddies at the New York Times and LA
> Times or not.
>
> Mohammed is definitive SOLVENT enough to pay for such a costly litigation. But
> obviously we do not wish to end up like the Bikini atoll inhabitants who will
> have to wait for " Judgement day " in order to be to paid with heavenly
> currency.....not of much use then.
>
> But whatever happens we are not going to let Gisnparg off the hook and give him
> a slap on the wrist.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Thank you for your advice
>
> Carlos
>
>
From ???@??? Tue Oct 24 14:55:31 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.137] (ip137.innerx.net [38.179.176.137])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id A67B437224; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:55:59 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b61b8898885b@[38.179.176.137]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:55:10 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: process
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, castro@ts.infn.it
X-UIDL: U[B!!8@!"!^L8e9;$T!!
Alex, you have a good idea when you say:
"... in the Dept. of Justice there are some department(s)
which deals with discrimination.
Since Carlos is a minority he can claim that his rights
have been violated by these unfair practices.
... I also know for sure that the lawyers in this specific dept.
are extremely aggressive and ambitious. ...".
Since Clark Atlanta was threatened as an institution,
and since it was founded by freed slaves,
and since Carlos Castro is Hispanic, maybe the justice department
would be an arm of government that could take on the NSF, DOE, etc.
Further, civil rights organizations have contacts with the media
that are deeper than the contacts of the scientific establishment,
so that
if the matter is approached as a civil rights matter,
Carlos might be more likely to get fair media coverage.
Another thing that might make the media more interested
might be for Carlos to challenge Ginsparg to a public debate
of theories.
As an example of media interest in such things,
I have heard that Brian Greene, author of the popular
superstring book Elegant Universe, has received
over $2 million as an advance for his next book,
and has been given a TV show.
Tony 24 October 2000
From ???@??? Tue Oct 24 18:26:39 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 35D3837103
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:11:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:14:22 -0700
Message-ID: <39F5FC6E.398CA05B@home.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:17:34 -0700
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Cc: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>,
Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: process
References: <200010241909.PAA21614@ctsps.cau.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-UIDL: Rj/!!b8<e9&W4!!@1"e9
I agree with that we should not be carried away. But judging by a clear
and concise picture presented by you we have at hand a crystal-clear
case of
1) a harassment, I would even say a
witch hunt, of one of the members of a scientific community for daring
to express ideas different from the prevalent line of thought, namely
string theory ( still very speculative, as recognized by everyone,
including practitioners of the theory). This by itself is a violation of
the academic freedom.
1a) moreover, since Carlos makes his
living by doing research and PUBLISHING research results, such a
harassment directly impinges on his ability to earn his living. Yes,
there is a free market of ideas, and people are either "buying" or "not
buying" them, but the decision what to do lies totally with the people
and not with administrators of the archives - a free forum of exchange
of Scientific ideas. Carlos is not peddling smut, he sells his vision of
the physical world. If it is "crazy' to some tastes it is still a valid
alternative theory. Let us recall the words by N. Bohr, " this theory is
crazy, but not crazy enough to be correct!".
2) a harassment in a form of
threats to ban the whole institution from publishing in the ( Government
supported) archives for its support of one of its members. This is not
only a violation of the academic freedom but also ( in my opinion ) a
blackmail. Indirectly ( via your conversation with D.Finkelstein) it has
also become clear that this actions have been undertaken with respect to
other institution. Otherwise I could not explain the behavior of D.F. Of
course, nobody could require or even expect a heroism of any person
except himself, and not everybody is Andrei Sakharov, far from that.
This indicates a very sad state of affairs in the American scientific
establishment which I could have never expected ( in my naïveté while
living in the former Sov. Union) to find in the USA.
3) minor points: both Carlos and his
institution are minorities. This makes harassment the more repugnant,
implying that minorities cannot present a valid ( or "normal") theory.
I think that in view of the above well defined ( by you) points the
Civil Rights division of the Justice Department will almost definitely
take this case and will have a very strong case to pursue. I would like
to repeat that I know from some instances that the lawyers there are
extremely aggressive and tenacious and they will pursue this case to the
victorious end, or at least to the acceptable settlement.
Alex
"Carlos R. Handy" wrote:
> Let us not get carried away. The bottom line is that
> Los Alamos's archives, which are Federally subsidized, should
> not engage in censorship, or a deliberate practice of
> professional harassment against members of the greater academic
> communityÿÿss
> The fact that we are a black school, and probably insignificant
> to Ginsparg, enters into his subjective attitude towards us -
> however, one has to be careful, because there are probably
> other minority schools represented in the archives. However,
> I doubt any of these are pursuing the kinds of issues Carlos is
> interested in.
>
> Ginsparg has debased his responsibility by threatening us with
> black listing, if we dare champion someone we have endorsed.
> This is an infringement of academic freedom. Also, he adopted
> a patronizing attitude towards me, in suggesting that I should
> feel embarassed about supporing Castro.
>
> Ginsparg has damaged Castro's reputation. I went to speak with
> Finkelstein, and he withdrew from getting into the fray, or
> even supporting or tolerating Castro. Clearly, this negative
> attitude towards Castro is concerted and deliberate by those
> with vested research interests.
>
> Their intolerance is abominable, and repugnant to responsible
> academic freedom.
From ???@??? Tue Oct 24 18:26:40 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 90CD037208
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:21:12 -0700
Message-ID: <39F5FE09.35CBB65F@home.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:24:25 -0700
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: process
References: <l03102801b61b8898885b@[38.179.176.137]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------B417BD7ACD675C9CCA104B2A"
X-UIDL: 2fU!!h*)e9e6`!!61Sd9
<html><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Tony,
<p>BY some quirk of fate, I am familiar with the case when the civil rights
division of the JD took on Lawrence Livermore Lab. The lawyers working
on <tt>his case turned out to be extremely aggressive and they intimidated
the Lab into a settlement.</tt><tt></tt>
<p><tt>The case was not that clear-cut ( in terms of a suppression of the
rights to publish in the archives which do not require a per review!)
but more subtle. Nonetheless, the mere presence of the JD lawyers put some
fear into the people in command at the Lab.</tt><tt></tt>
<p><tt>Interestingly enough, these lawyers asked the interested parties
whether they want to make this case public.</tt><tt></tt>
<p><tt>I am convinced that the path to pursue is to involve civil rights
division of JD: it is free, it intimidates the opponent, and it could become
public ( the last thing that LANL wants after the spy scandals)</tt>
<br><tt></tt> <tt></tt>
<p><tt>
Alex</tt>
<p>Tony Smith wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Alex, you have a good idea when you say:
<br>"... in the Dept. of Justice there are some department(s)
<br>which deals with discrimination.
<br>Since Carlos is a minority he can claim that his rights
<br>have been violated by these unfair practices.
<br>... I also know for sure that the lawyers in this specific dept.
<br>are extremely aggressive and ambitious. ...".
<p>Since Clark Atlanta was threatened as an institution,
<br>and since it was founded by freed slaves,
<br>and since Carlos Castro is Hispanic, maybe the justice department
<br>would be an arm of government that could take on the NSF, DOE, etc.
<p>Further, civil rights organizations have contacts with the media
<br>that are deeper than the contacts of the scientific establishment,
<br>so that
<br>if the matter is approached as a civil rights matter,
<br>Carlos might be more likely to get fair media coverage.
<p>Another thing that might make the media more interested
<br>might be for Carlos to challenge Ginsparg to a public debate
<br>of theories.
<p>As an example of media interest in such things,
<br>I have heard that Brian Greene, author of the popular
<br>superstring book Elegant Universe, has received
<br>over $2 million as an advance for his next book,
<br>and has been given a TV show.
<p>Tony 24 October 2000</blockquote>
</html>
</html>
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:27 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f51.hotmail.com [209.185.131.114])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEDB371E2
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:51:06 -0700
Received: from 140.105.31.36 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:51:05 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [140.105.31.36]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: agranik1@home.com, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Division
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:51:05 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <LAW-F51QHh2wLCVYl4m000009d3@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2000 15:51:06.0184 (UTC) FILETIME=[629F6480:01C03E9B]
X-UIDL: *U!e9'RS!!VFP!!j"f!!
Dear Alex , Tony and Carlos;
Could you please give me the address, phone, e-mail...of people at the Civil
Rights Division of the Justice Dept. So we can proceed.
Thank you very much for ALL your help.
An mportant point to make is the following.
Juan Maldacena is from Argentina and a Princeton boy. He belongs to the
club. Many Argentinians ( I have wonderful friends there ) consider
themselves Europeans ( whites ). Clearly, we have to admit the sad social
realities of our world. They affect everything including academia.
I have now, 3 papers ( one by myself and two with the Italians ) which may
explain the REAL orgins behind Maldacena's conjecture.
Will my biography ( hagography ) appear in Newsweek like Maldacena's ? NO
!
Why ? : In the eyes of this people I do not belong to the club and Clark
Atlanta neither. I may be entitled to martyrdom ( insane asylum ) but not
to sainthood.
I can understand David Finkelstein position. He does not want any problems
for himself nor for his colleagues nor students. I hold no grudges towards
him. Let the Physics speak and stand up for itself.
Thank you so much for your support and for tolerating me
Carlos
>From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
>To: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
>CC: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>, Carlos Perelman
><perelmanc@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: process
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:17:34 -0700
>
>I agree with that we should not be carried away. But judging by a clear
>and concise picture presented by you we have at hand a crystal-clear
>case of
>
> 1) a harassment, I would even say a
>witch hunt, of one of the members of a scientific community for daring
>to express ideas different from the prevalent line of thought, namely
>string theory ( still very speculative, as recognized by everyone,
>including practitioners of the theory). This by itself is a violation of
>the academic freedom.
> 1a) moreover, since Carlos makes his
>living by doing research and PUBLISHING research results, such a
>harassment directly impinges on his ability to earn his living. Yes,
>there is a free market of ideas, and people are either "buying" or "not
>buying" them, but the decision what to do lies totally with the people
>and not with administrators of the archives - a free forum of exchange
>of Scientific ideas. Carlos is not peddling smut, he sells his vision of
>the physical world. If it is "crazy' to some tastes it is still a valid
>alternative theory. Let us recall the words by N. Bohr, " this theory is
>crazy, but not crazy enough to be correct!".
>
>
> 2) a harassment in a form of
>threats to ban the whole institution from publishing in the ( Government
>supported) archives for its support of one of its members. This is not
>only a violation of the academic freedom but also ( in my opinion ) a
>blackmail. Indirectly ( via your conversation with D.Finkelstein) it has
>also become clear that this actions have been undertaken with respect to
>other institution. Otherwise I could not explain the behavior of D.F. Of
>course, nobody could require or even expect a heroism of any person
>except himself, and not everybody is Andrei Sakharov, far from that.
>This indicates a very sad state of affairs in the American scientific
>establishment which I could have never expected ( in my naÔvetÈ while
>living in the former Sov. Union) to find in the USA.
>
> 3) minor points: both Carlos and his
>institution are minorities. This makes harassment the more repugnant,
>implying that minorities cannot present a valid ( or "normal") theory.
>
>
>I think that in view of the above well defined ( by you) points the
>Civil Rights division of the Justice Department will almost definitely
>take this case and will have a very strong case to pursue. I would like
>to repeat that I know from some instances that the lawyers there are
>extremely aggressive and tenacious and they will pursue this case to the
>victorious end, or at least to the acceptable settlement.
>
>
> Alex
>
>"Carlos R. Handy" wrote:
>
> > Let us not get carried away. The bottom line is that
> > Los Alamos's archives, which are Federally subsidized, should
> > not engage in censorship, or a deliberate practice of
> > professional harassment against members of the greater academic
> > communityÿÿss
> > The fact that we are a black school, and probably insignificant
> > to Ginsparg, enters into his subjective attitude towards us -
> > however, one has to be careful, because there are probably
> > other minority schools represented in the archives. However,
> > I doubt any of these are pursuing the kinds of issues Carlos is
> > interested in.
> >
> > Ginsparg has debased his responsibility by threatening us with
> > black listing, if we dare champion someone we have endorsed.
> > This is an infringement of academic freedom. Also, he adopted
> > a patronizing attitude towards me, in suggesting that I should
> > feel embarassed about supporing Castro.
> >
> > Ginsparg has damaged Castro's reputation. I went to speak with
> > Finkelstein, and he withdrew from getting into the fray, or
> > even supporting or tolerating Castro. Clearly, this negative
> > attitude towards Castro is concerted and deliberate by those
> > with vested research interests.
> >
> > Their intolerance is abominable, and repugnant to responsible
> > academic freedom.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:31 2000
Return-Path: <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from ctsps.cau.edu (ctsps.cau.edu [205.129.163.2])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC80372EE
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:35:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from handyman@localhost) by ctsps.cau.edu (AIX4.3/UCB 8.8.8/8.7) id MAA10612; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:05:18 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:05:18 -0400
From: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Message-Id: <200010251605.MAA10612@ctsps.cau.edu>
To: agranik1@home.com, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, perelmanc@hotmail.com,
tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Division
X-UIDL: ?^\!!\jQ!!3](!!VBTd9
The best thing you could do, is sue them. This would expose them
on political grounds. Of course, the science will be scrutinized
even more closely, but that is good as well.
Handy
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:28 2000
Return-Path: <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from hotmail.com (law-f84.hotmail.com [209.185.131.147])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 539903729A
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:23:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:23:04 -0700
Received: from 140.105.31.36 by lw1fd.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:23:04 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [140.105.31.36]
From: "Carlos Perelman" <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
To: agranik1@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
Subject: For your Records : H.Ooguri and NUCPHB 7713
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:23:04 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_6fd5_b57_3150"
Message-ID: <LAW-F84z9pCGSbyGMj100000a92@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Oct 2000 16:23:04.0996 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA52DE40:01C03E9F]
X-UIDL: RLjd9@hOe9~g~!!B4k!!
Dear Alex, Carlos and Tony :
For your records I am forwading the e-mail sent by Paul Schuddeboom
at NPB. The attachment contained in this e-mail below contained the
admission by NPB of having looked at my work in Los Alamos which found the
New Relativity oulandish. I already sent Carlos and Alex a fax containing
copies of this attachment.
Notice the date of January, 28, 2000 ( months after the Elsevier Editorial
house asked for my Tex file to send it to the "printer" ).
This letter ( that Alex and Carlos have ) is the response/excuse that NPB
gave to Carlos Handy's legal letter of complaint of H.Ooguri's nasty
sabotage of my paper recommended by their 2 referees.
It was precisely in February when the problems with Los Alamos began.
See the paper on " On M Theory, Quantum Paradoxes and the New Relativity " (
I wrote with Alex ) : this paper was removed from the hep-th /archives. It
was again re-submitted to hep-th and removed again and finally displaced to
the physics archives physics/0002019
This was the beginning of the nightmare. You don't need to be Sherlock
Holmes to infer the strong correlation between the response by NPB (
admission of looking at ny work in Los Alamos ) and Ginsparg's actions.
For me it is clear what happened. Of course, to prove this in court is
another story, although this could be enough circumstantial evidence for
MOTIVE. Why else would Ginsparg attack me ? .
He never did before !
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos
>From: NUCLEAR PHYSICS B <npb@elsevier.nl>
>To: "'castro@ctsps.cau.edu'" <castro@ctsps.cau.edu>
>Subject: NUCPHB 7713
>Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 17:35:14 +0100
>
>Dear Dr. Castro,
>
>The paper:
>
> Conformally invariant $\sigma$ models on AdS spaces, Chern-Simons
>p-branes
>and W geometry
>
> by
>
>C. Castro,
>
>has now been reviewed in the light of your recent letter, and the
>Supervisory Editors have also been consulted. The report is herewith
>attached.
>
>In view of this, we regret having to maintain our decision not to publish
>your work in Nuclear Physics B.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Paul Schuddeboom
>
>
>for the Editors of Nuclear Physics B
>
>
>
>Editorial Office of Nuclear Physics
>Sara Burgerhartstraat 25
>1055 KV Amsterdam
>The Netherlands
>
>Email: npb@elsevier.nl
>Fax: +31 20 485 2370
>Tel: +31 20 485 2356
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>NUCLEAR PHYSICS is also available electronically through :
>http:www.elsevier.nl/locate/npe
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
Attachment converted: iPurple:REP7713B.TXT (TEXT/MSIE) (0002736D)
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:34 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA9337327
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:08:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA07458;
Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:07:25 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010251707.TAA07458@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu, agranik1@home.com
Cc: hnadyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Big Misundertanding
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:07:25 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: >k\!!TEg!!d'0e9U11!!
Dear David :
Thank you for your e-mail about the misunderstanding. I heard from Alex Granik
that that a Russian scientist told him that we needed to include a copyright
form with the manuscript sent to your journal.
I had NO idea whatsoever that the paper was RETURNED for major re-writing.
Alex Granik never told me this. I was NOT informed of this.
I thought the only problem was that the copyright forms were not included,
as they ought to, according to the guidelines of IJTP.
William Pezagglia submitted a paper to your journal entitled :
Dimensionally Democratic Calculus and Principles of Polydimensional Physics
gr-qc/9912025
I spoke on the phone with William Pezzaglia, back then, from Atlanta to Santa
Clara, California, and he told me that his paper had been accepted by IJTP.
This is what he told me over the phone. I had no reasons to doubt this so I
pressume it was accepted.
My paper with Alex Granik uses Clifford algebras in the same way that
Pezzaglia did . Also, Poly-dimensional covariance is one of the many
tenets of the New Relativity and of the paper submitted to your journal.
For these reasons, I imagine that your journal was very suitable to send this
sort of work.
In any case, I can understand that you do not wish ( or may not be willing )
to get involved in this mess concerning the abominable censorship and boycott of
my work by Paul Ginsparg at the Los Alamos archives and by others in the string
mafia community.
I hope Alex will send me immediately the comments about the re-writing of the
paper. I repeat, I NEVER was informed of this.
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
Delivery-Date: Wed Oct 25 17:42:58 2000
Received: from anvil.gatech.edu (infnts.ts.infn.it [140.105.6.150])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02050
for <castro@axpts2.ts.infn.it>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:42:57 +0200 (MET
DST)
Received: from anvil.gatech.edu (130.207.165.41) by INFNTS with TCP/IP SMTP;
Wed, 25 OCT 00 17:43 CET
Received: from [130.207.140.60] (finkel1.physics.gatech.edu [130.207.140.60])
by anvil.gatech.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id LAA27498
for <castro@ts.infn.it>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: df4@pop.prism.gatech.edu (Unverified)
Message-Id: <p04310105b61cae4c2945@[130.207.140.60]>
In-Reply-To: <200010242010.WAA17283@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
References: <200010242010.WAA17283@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:43:38 -0400
To: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From: David Ritz Finkelstein <david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu>
Subject: Re: David Finkelstein
Dear Carlos Castro,
There seems to have been a mistake in communication. Your paper with
Granik, our MS 000925, has not been accepted by IJTP but has been
returned for major rewriting, with a view to making it more
self-contained and understandable.
I could not find a paper by Pezzaglia in our file of accepted papers,
but it may not have been entered yet, due to a vacation period. Can
you tell me the MS number of Pezzaglia's paper?
Best wishes,
david
>Dear Carlos, Alex and Tony :
>
>This is one of the reasons why Alex and I submitted the Logarithmic
>corrections
>of the the Black H ole Entropy derived from the New Relativity to David's
>journal.
>
>David has worked a lot on Clifford algebras and has accepted
>( published by now , I guess ) the work by Pezzaglia ( this is what Pezzaglia
>told me over the phone ) on Poly-dimensional covariance using
>Clifford algebras,
>which is one of the postulates of the New Relativity.
>
>
>I have told David, ( Alex has a copy ), that the next project will
>be to obtain
>Einstein's gravity as a long distance limit of the New Relativity.
>This is a hard problem.
>
>The paper Alex and I sent him is crystal clear, no quackery and any
>undergraduate student with a knowledge of QM can follow it and check our
>numerical results. The algebra and the numbers do not lie. Numbers are
>indestructible. The next problem is to show why the Black Hole geometry
>emerges in the long distance limit. This we have not done yet. A Very hard
>problem that NOBODY has done. ( as far as I know ) .
>
>
>David himself is not an advocate of string theory. However,
>when I met Tony Smith at David's office, David himself told me that the New
>Relativity has helped him to alleviate some of his distrust for string thoery.
>Tony was present when David said this to me in his office.
>
>
>If you wish to see the report by Mathematical Reviews ( Matej Pavsic )
>about one of my New Relativity papers published in Mohhamed's journal
>you may do so. The paper title was :
>
>Hints of a New Relativity Principle from p-Brane QM ( Journal Chaos, Solitons
>and Fractals 11 ; 2000, page 1721 ).
>
>
>I can understand that David does not want to meddle with this nasty affair.
>He probably himself has difficulties in getting funded by the NSF or DOE...
>So he does not need to gain enemies !
>
>I just hope he gets an OBJECTIVE referee ( s ) so we can publish the paper in
>his journal.
>
>I have papers in Foundations of Physics as well. Hopefully, as time passes
>people will begin to accept these ideas.
>
>
>The fact that my reputation is " fucked ' is very true. I got the report from
>the last paper ( very conventional paper ) fron Nuclear Physics B.
>This paper should NOT be confused with the paper that Hitoshi Ooguri
>sabotaged.
>
>One referee was fine and the other wrote :
>
>" I was unable to follow the paper and UNWILLING to go through the references
>therefore I do not recommend publication "
>
>Can you believe this sort of response ? Can you imagine that NPB did NOT even
>send the paper to another competent referee ( as they should ) and
>told me bye
>bye....
>
>
>so YES; my reputation is ruined. I am screwed. Even if the 2 referees had
>accepted the paper for NPB , like it happened before, Ooguri or his buddies
>would have come again and sabotage it using their sacred veto of being
>members of the Editorial Board.....
>
>
>
>Very very sad.
>
>Winners never quit and quitters never win.
>
>So we fight.
>
>Best wishes
>
>
>Carlos
------- End of Forwarded Message
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:47 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 760D9373AB
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:38:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:42:12 -0700
Message-ID: <39F73855.5B549175@home.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:45:25 -0700
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>
Cc: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: Big Misundertanding
References: <200010251707.TAA07458@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------4549A836BC472D0E05EE4DC8"
X-UIDL: `A=!!9e+!!^L(!!>RSd9
<html><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Dear Carlos:
<p>I am<b> appalled</b> by the duplicity of D.F. I have never, I repeat
NEVER, received any mail from D.F., except for a brief exchange of E-mail
( two letters) with the Dr. Galiautdinov ( assoc. Editor) and one phone
call from him on 10/10, advising me
<p>
1) to fill out the copyright form
<br>and
<p>
2) to resend the paper typed double-spaced
<p>This was all.
<p>Therefore to claim that "Your paper with Granik, our MS 000925, has
not been accepted by IJTP but has been returned for major rewriting, with
a view to making it more self-contained and understandable"
<p>is a <b>total lie</b>. Maybe it is going reach us in the future, but
as of today I did not receive a word from either the Journal or its editors.
<p>Once again, I am appalled and disgusted. One thing is not to be involved,
and absolutely another to be an active participant in a persecution!
<p>
Best wishes,
<p>
Alex
<p>
<p>"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Dear David :
<p>Thank you for your e-mail about the misunderstanding. I heard from Alex
Granik
<br>that that a Russian scientist told him that we needed to include a
copyright
<br>form with the manuscript sent to your journal.
<p>I had NO idea whatsoever that the paper was RETURNED for major re-writing.
<br>Alex Granik never told me this. I was NOT informed of this.
<br>I thought the only problem was that the copyright forms were not included,
<br>as they ought to, according to the guidelines of IJTP.
<p>William Pezagglia submitted a paper to your journal entitled :
<p>Dimensionally Democratic Calculus and Principles of Polydimensional
Physics
<p>gr-qc/9912025
<p>I spoke on the phone with William Pezzaglia, back then, from Atlanta
to Santa
<br>Clara, California, and he told me that his paper had been accepted
by IJTP.
<br>This is what he told me over the phone. I had no reasons to doubt this
so I
<br>pressume it was accepted.
<p>My paper with Alex Granik uses Clifford algebras in the same way that
<br>Pezzaglia did . Also, Poly-dimensional covariance is one of the many
<br>tenets of the New Relativity and of the paper submitted to your journal.
<br>For these reasons, I imagine that your journal was very suitable to
send this
<br>sort of work.
<p>In any case, I can understand that you do not wish ( or may not be willing
)
<br>to get involved in this mess concerning the abominable censorship and
boycott of
<br>my work by Paul Ginsparg at the Los Alamos archives and by others in
the string
<br>mafia community.
<p>I hope Alex will send me immediately the comments about the re-writing
of the
<br>paper. I repeat, I NEVER was informed of this.
<p>Thank you
<p>Best wishes
<p>Carlos
<p>------- Forwarded Message
<p>Return-Path: david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
<br>Delivery-Date: Wed Oct 25 17:42:58 2000
<br>Received: from anvil.gatech.edu (infnts.ts.infn.it [140.105.6.150])
<br> by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3)
with SMTP id RAA02050
<br> for <castro@axpts2.ts.infn.it>;
Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:42:57 +0200 (MET
<br>DST)
<br>Received: from anvil.gatech.edu (130.207.165.41) by INFNTS with TCP/IP
SMTP;
<br> Wed, 25 OCT 00 17:43 CET
<br>Received: from [130.207.140.60] (finkel1.physics.gatech.edu [130.207.140.60])
<br> by anvil.gatech.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2)
with ESMTP id LAA27498
<br> for <castro@ts.infn.it>;
Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:43:41 -0400 (EDT)
<br>Mime-Version: 1.0
<br>X-Sender: df4@pop.prism.gatech.edu (Unverified)
<br>Message-Id: <p04310105b61cae4c2945@[130.207.140.60]>
<br>In-Reply-To: <200010242010.WAA17283@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
<br>References: <200010242010.WAA17283@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
<br>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:43:38 -0400
<br>To: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
<br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
<br>From: David Ritz Finkelstein <david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu>
<br>Subject: Re: David Finkelstein
<p>Dear Carlos Castro,
<p>There seems to have been a mistake in communication. Your paper
with
<br>Granik, our MS 000925, has not been accepted by IJTP but has been
<br>returned for major rewriting, with a view to making it more
<br>self-contained and understandable.
<p>I could not find a paper by Pezzaglia in our file of accepted papers,
<br>but it may not have been entered yet, due to a vacation period. Can
<br>you tell me the MS number of Pezzaglia's paper?
<p>Best wishes,
<p>david
<p>>Dear Carlos, Alex and Tony :
<br>>
<br>>This is one of the reasons why Alex and I submitted the Logarithmic
<br>>corrections
<br>>of the the Black H ole Entropy derived from the New Relativity to
David's
<br>>journal.
<br>>
<br>>David has worked a lot on Clifford algebras and has accepted
<br>>( published by now , I guess ) the work by Pezzaglia ( this is what
Pezzaglia
<br>>told me over the phone ) on Poly-dimensional covariance using
<br>>Clifford algebras,
<br>>which is one of the postulates of the New Relativity.
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>I have told David, ( Alex has a copy ), that the next project will
<br>>be to obtain
<br>>Einstein's gravity as a long distance limit of the New Relativity.
<br>>This is a hard problem.
<br>>
<br>>The paper Alex and I sent him is crystal clear, no quackery and any
<br>>undergraduate student with a knowledge of QM can follow it and check
our
<br>>numerical results. The algebra and the numbers do not lie. Numbers
are
<br>>indestructible. The next problem is to show why the Black Hole geometry
<br>>emerges in the long distance limit. This we have not done yet. A Very
hard
<br>>problem that NOBODY has done. ( as far as I know ) .
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>David himself is not an advocate of string theory. However,
<br>>when I met Tony Smith at David's office, David himself told me that
the New
<br>>Relativity has helped him to alleviate some of his distrust for string
thoery.
<br>>Tony was present when David said this to me in his office.
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>If you wish to see the report by Mathematical Reviews ( Matej Pavsic
)
<br>>about one of my New Relativity papers published in Mohhamed's journal
<br>>you may do so. The paper title was :
<br>>
<br>>Hints of a New Relativity Principle from p-Brane QM ( Journal Chaos,
Solitons
<br>>and Fractals 11 ; 2000, page 1721 ).
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>I can understand that David does not want to meddle with this nasty
affair.
<br>>He probably himself has difficulties in getting funded by the NSF
or DOE...
<br>>So he does not need to gain enemies !
<br>>
<br>>I just hope he gets an OBJECTIVE referee ( s ) so we can publish the
paper in
<br>>his journal.
<br>>
<br>>I have papers in Foundations of Physics as well. Hopefully, as time
passes
<br>>people will begin to accept these ideas.
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>The fact that my reputation is " fucked ' is very true. I got the
report from
<br>>the last paper ( very conventional paper ) fron Nuclear Physics B.
<br>>This paper should NOT be confused with the paper that Hitoshi Ooguri
<br>>sabotaged.
<br>>
<br>>One referee was fine and the other wrote :
<br>>
<br>>" I was unable to follow the paper and UNWILLING to go through the
references
<br>>therefore I do not recommend publication "
<br>>
<br>>Can you believe this sort of response ? Can you imagine that NPB did
NOT even
<br>>send the paper to another competent referee ( as they should )
and
<br>>told me bye
<br>>bye....
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>so YES; my reputation is ruined. I am screwed. Even if the 2 referees
had
<br>>accepted the paper for NPB , like it happened before, Ooguri or his
buddies
<br>>would have come again and sabotage it using their sacred veto of being
<br>>members of the Editorial Board.....
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>Very very sad.
<br>>
<br>>Winners never quit and quitters never win.
<br>>
<br>>So we fight.
<br>>
<br>>Best wishes
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>Carlos
<p>------- End of Forwarded Message</blockquote>
</html>
</html>
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:50 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id CBA7137328
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:58:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:00:05 -0700
Message-ID: <39F73C84.D0CFCE78@home.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:03:16 -0700
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carlos Perelman <perelmanc@hotmail.com>
Cc: "tsmith@innerx.net" <tsmith@innerx.net>,
"handyman@ctsps.cau.edu" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
Subject: Re: Civil Rights Division
References: <LAW-F51QHh2wLCVYl4m000009d3@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-UIDL: #EQe90O1!![Ked9f%Ne9
Dear Carlos,
I do not think that whiteness plays any role in Maldacena case. It is much
simpler:
in Academia only those are going to succeed who tow the present party line. It
is like in Stalinist Russia: today the general (mainstream) party line is , say
A, and everybody is for that. If somebody dares to issue even a pip, he is
finished. Tomorrow the general line ( determined by the high priests of science,
and only by them) changes, say to B, which is opposite to A, and once again
everybody is for this line, since a deviation endangers your life.
Maldacena sings the same tune, with some variation, but still the same tune.
Unfortunately, we dared to spoil the party, and not to sing "Long live the
general line!'. Therefore we are finished as far as they are concerned. It is
like a life in a Stalinist concentration camp: "Step sidewise, step backward is
considered as an attempt to escape, the guard opens fire without warning".
Academia became a rampart of the ossified thinking where new ideas are allowed
only when they are pronounced by the chosen people ( princeton, Harvard,
Berkeley, etc.) As for the unwashed masses they do not have enough brains ( they
are idiots, aren't they) not only to pronounce new ideas but to even sing with
the chorus.
I am glad that soon I will be out of this poison snake's pit. It disgusts me and
force to wonder whether there are any decent people left ( except for a few
remarkable people who we are corresponding with)?
Thanks to all of you for supporting Carlos.
Best wishes,
Alex
Best
Carlos Perelman wrote:
> Dear Alex , Tony and Carlos;
>
> Could you please give me the address, phone, e-mail...of people at the Civil
> Rights Division of the Justice Dept. So we can proceed.
>
> Thank you very much for ALL your help.
>
> An mportant point to make is the following.
>
> Juan Maldacena is from Argentina and a Princeton boy. He belongs to the
> club. Many Argentinians ( I have wonderful friends there ) consider
> themselves Europeans ( whites ). Clearly, we have to admit the sad social
> realities of our world. They affect everything including academia.
>
> I have now, 3 papers ( one by myself and two with the Italians ) which may
> explain the REAL orgins behind Maldacena's conjecture.
>
> Will my biography ( hagography ) appear in Newsweek like Maldacena's ? NO
> !
>
> Why ? : In the eyes of this people I do not belong to the club and Clark
> Atlanta neither. I may be entitled to martyrdom ( insane asylum ) but not
> to sainthood.
>
> I can understand David Finkelstein position. He does not want any problems
> for himself nor for his colleagues nor students. I hold no grudges towards
> him. Let the Physics speak and stand up for itself.
>
> Thank you so much for your support and for tolerating me
>
> Carlos
>
> >From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
> >To: "Carlos R. Handy" <handyman@ctsps.cau.edu>
> >CC: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>, Carlos Perelman
> ><perelmanc@hotmail.com>
> >Subject: Re: process
> >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:17:34 -0700
> >
> >I agree with that we should not be carried away. But judging by a clear
> >and concise picture presented by you we have at hand a crystal-clear
> >case of
> >
> > 1) a harassment, I would even say a
> >witch hunt, of one of the members of a scientific community for daring
> >to express ideas different from the prevalent line of thought, namely
> >string theory ( still very speculative, as recognized by everyone,
> >including practitioners of the theory). This by itself is a violation of
> >the academic freedom.
> > 1a) moreover, since Carlos makes his
> >living by doing research and PUBLISHING research results, such a
> >harassment directly impinges on his ability to earn his living. Yes,
> >there is a free market of ideas, and people are either "buying" or "not
> >buying" them, but the decision what to do lies totally with the people
> >and not with administrators of the archives - a free forum of exchange
> >of Scientific ideas. Carlos is not peddling smut, he sells his vision of
> >the physical world. If it is "crazy' to some tastes it is still a valid
> >alternative theory. Let us recall the words by N. Bohr, " this theory is
> >crazy, but not crazy enough to be correct!".
> >
> >
> > 2) a harassment in a form of
> >threats to ban the whole institution from publishing in the ( Government
> >supported) archives for its support of one of its members. This is not
> >only a violation of the academic freedom but also ( in my opinion ) a
> >blackmail. Indirectly ( via your conversation with D.Finkelstein) it has
> >also become clear that this actions have been undertaken with respect to
> >other institution. Otherwise I could not explain the behavior of D.F. Of
> >course, nobody could require or even expect a heroism of any person
> >except himself, and not everybody is Andrei Sakharov, far from that.
> >This indicates a very sad state of affairs in the American scientific
> >establishment which I could have never expected ( in my naïveté while
> >living in the former Sov. Union) to find in the USA.
> >
> > 3) minor points: both Carlos and his
> >institution are minorities. This makes harassment the more repugnant,
> >implying that minorities cannot present a valid ( or "normal") theory.
> >
> >
> >I think that in view of the above well defined ( by you) points the
> >Civil Rights division of the Justice Department will almost definitely
> >take this case and will have a very strong case to pursue. I would like
> >to repeat that I know from some instances that the lawyers there are
> >extremely aggressive and tenacious and they will pursue this case to the
> >victorious end, or at least to the acceptable settlement.
> >
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >"Carlos R. Handy" wrote:
> >
> > > Let us not get carried away. The bottom line is that
> > > Los Alamos's archives, which are Federally subsidized, should
> > > not engage in censorship, or a deliberate practice of
> > > professional harassment against members of the greater academic
> > > communityÿÿss
> > > The fact that we are a black school, and probably insignificant
> > > to Ginsparg, enters into his subjective attitude towards us -
> > > however, one has to be careful, because there are probably
> > > other minority schools represented in the archives. However,
> > > I doubt any of these are pursuing the kinds of issues Carlos is
> > > interested in.
> > >
> > > Ginsparg has debased his responsibility by threatening us with
> > > black listing, if we dare champion someone we have endorsed.
> > > This is an infringement of academic freedom. Also, he adopted
> > > a patronizing attitude towards me, in suggesting that I should
> > > feel embarassed about supporing Castro.
> > >
> > > Ginsparg has damaged Castro's reputation. I went to speak with
> > > Finkelstein, and he withdrew from getting into the fray, or
> > > even supporting or tolerating Castro. Clearly, this negative
> > > attitude towards Castro is concerted and deliberate by those
> > > with vested research interests.
> > >
> > > Their intolerance is abominable, and repugnant to responsible
> > > academic freedom.
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> http://profiles.msn.com.
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 18:04:52 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22A953733F
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:52:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13227;
Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:51:19 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010252051.WAA13227@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu, agranik1@home.com,
handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Confusion, miscommunication....
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:51:19 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: ,hf!!dYAe90YV!!Y91!!
Dear David :
I have just beeen informed from Alex Granik that he never received by mail nor
by e-mail any comments whatsoever about the need for re-writing the paper to
make it more understandable and self contained.
Could you plesae talk with Dr. Galiautdinov and find out exactly what
is going on, what happened. Thanks.
Alex Granik says that the only e-mail exchanges ( or any other mail ) received
from your associate editor was to fill out a copyright form and to send the
paper typed double-spaced. And nothing more, and nothing less.
Perhaps the alledged letter is on its way, perhaps the e-mails got lost, or
bounced, but Alex Granik insists that he never received any news from your
journal asking the paper to be re-written.
I certainly did not receive anything. This I am certain.
I would be very greatful if you spoke with Dr. Galiautdinov .
I am sorry for this confusion and misunderstanding.
Thank you very much
Sincerely
best wishes
Carlos
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 20:12:14 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.162] (ip162.innerx.net [38.179.176.162])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id D8BE837330; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:10:28 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102803b61d26177321@[38.179.176.162]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:09:37 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: 3!4e9,hE!!BUW!!gV9!!
Alex and Carlos (Castro),
I just today (Wednesday), after about 6 PM Eastern Time,
saw some e-mail messages about a paper submitted by you to IJTP,
which messages that said:
------------------------------------------------------------
[David Finkelstein]
"... Your paper with Granik, our MS 000925,
has not been accepted by IJTP but has been returned for major rewriting,
with a view to making it more self-contained and understandable. ...".
[Carlos Castro]
"... I had NO idea whatsoever that
the paper was RETURNED for major re-writing. ...".
[Alex Granik]
"... I have never, I repeat NEVER, received any mail from D.F.,
except for a brief exchange of E-mail
( two letters) with the Dr. Galiautdinov ( assoc. Editor)
and one phone call from him ...".
--------------------------------------------------------------
Since I am not officially connected with the journal IJTP,
and I do not know the details of the history of the paper MS 000925,
I hesistate to comment,
but
I do count everyone involved as good friends,
and so I would like to say some things that may (or may not) be helpful.
This afternoon (before I saw the above-referenced e-mails)
I visited David Finkelstein in his office.
In conversation, one subject that came up was the situation with the
Los Alamos archives. David was appalled that a threat might be
made against an entire institution (such as Clark Atlanta) based
on their support of any individual (such as Carlos Castro),
and he and I both agreed that the situation is regrettable.
I mentioned that Carlos Castro felt that his ability to publish
was being impaired, and David mentioned that any pending paper
submitted by Carlos Castro would be evaluated fairly,
and would not be rejected because of pressure from Los Alamos
or from anywhere else.
The associate editor that you, Alex, mention, is also a friend
of mine, and an advanced graduate student of David's, Andrei Galiautdinov.
Andrei grew up in the Former Soviet Union (Ukraine), and is
only just now beginning to be involved in the refereeing process.
Only a few weeks ago he and I had a long talk about the
responsibility of refereeing, and I told him what I used to do
when I used to be actively refereeing papers:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1 - I never refereed anonymously, but always had my name and e-mail
address made available.
2 - When I rejected papers (as I sometimes did), it was usually for one
of two reasons:
a - The paper was out of date, in that more recent work had
superceded the material in the paper. This case would occur,
for example, in papers from authors in places with poor
library resources (prior to the existence of the web archives),
and I tried to be explicit in telling the author a reference to
the later work and encouraging the author to pursue the subject
further, so that a revised or future paper would advance the
understanding of the subject.
b - The paper was not sufficiently self-contained, as for example
a paper that stated a result, and then referred to a proof of
that result in a paper (by the same author) that was not
published in a journal that the average reader could find
in the average library (again, this was prior to the existence
of the web archives). In such cases I encouraged the author
to write a more self-contained paper, without self-references to
hard-to-find papers for proof of necessary results.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it is possible that Andrei thought that the paper MS 000925
would be more understandable if it were more self-contained
and
maybe Andrei did not make himself clear in his efforts at communication
about the paper,
but
since Andrei is out of town for 2 or 3 weeks I will not be able to
ask him directly until then, when he returns to Atlanta,
and
since I have not seen the paper, I cannot express any opinion
as to whether it would be better if some things were added to it
to make it more self-contained.
Further,
since I don't know who is actually refereeing the paper,
I don't know whether Andrei was trying to communicate his own opinion
or the opinion of some other referee.
What I do know is that I feel that Andrei is an honorable person,
who is adapting to life in the USA after life in the Former Soviet Union,
and
that if he sees that he has not communicated clearly in this matter,
I believe that he will make a great effort to make clear communication
about it in the future (after he gets back to Atlanta).
I don't know whether the above is any help at all,
but I hope that it is not totally unhelpful.
Tony 25 October 2000
PS - Some years ago I had a very unpleasant experience with refereeing
by a journal out of Singapore, and since then I have refused to be
involved in any way in the refereeing process, either as author or
referee in any journal, a refusal on principle that I do not plan to change.
PPS - I also sent this message to
castro@ts.infn.it and david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
but it does not show in the header you will receive
because of my confusion in e-mail settings, etc.
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 21:48:57 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.84])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52D7370DE
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:41:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001026003953.KGBB26316.femail4.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:39:53 -0700
Message-ID: <39F77D62.7F01D60B@home.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:40:02 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
References: <l03102803b61d26177321@[38.179.176.162]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: 2\Ge9i\Md9f6Zd9&k)e9
Dear Tony,
Thank you very much. Based on the letter sent by D.F. to Carlos, and his
response, I had an impression that there are some games in play here.
To make things even more clear , I would like to relate a sequence of events
connected with our paper.
1) On 10/2 /00 I received an E-mail from Galiautdinov,
advising me to introduce the technical corrections into our paper, namely
a) to send a double-space copy,
b) to sign and send a copyright transfer form,
c) to indicated clearly which of the sent drafts is
final
I complied with points a) and b) being under impression that our copies had
been double-spaced ( I used an Acrobat PD.).
On 10/10/ I received another letter from A.Galiautdinov advising me that the
paper is not double-spaced. Almost immediately after that I received a call from
A.Galiautdinov, explaining that in fact the paper was not double-spaced. We have
cleared up that situation and also which of the drafts presented should be
final.
The same very day ( 10/10/00) I had sent the version which was finally
double-spaced.
That was the last that I heard from either A.Galiautdinov or D.Finkelstein.
Therefore any reference to " paper was RETURNED for major re-writing" sounds as
either a joke, or an indication that the "left hand" does not know what the
"right hand " is doing.
I do not know Dr. D.F. However, in view of the current situation with Carlos, I
am getting more and more cynical and loosing whatever faith in good will that I
still have. This is an age-old story: there are only a few
(a very few) good men and unfortunately they cannot make a difference, except on
personal level. Sad commentary.
More and more I inclined to think that we are presiding over the last days of
the empire. Yes, it is silly to carry out the analogy with Rome too far, but one
is still tempted to do this.
You are one of those very few good men. Therefore I am thankful that I got to
know you even via our correspondence.
Best wishes,
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex and Carlos (Castro),
> I just today (Wednesday), after about 6 PM Eastern Time,
> saw some e-mail messages about a paper submitted by you to IJTP,
> which messages that said:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [David Finkelstein]
> "... Your paper with Granik, our MS 000925,
> has not been accepted by IJTP but has been returned for major rewriting,
> with a view to making it more self-contained and understandable. ...".
>
> [Carlos Castro]
> "... I had NO idea whatsoever that
> the paper was RETURNED for major re-writing. ...".
>
> [Alex Granik]
> "... I have never, I repeat NEVER, received any mail from D.F.,
> except for a brief exchange of E-mail
> ( two letters) with the Dr. Galiautdinov ( assoc. Editor)
> and one phone call from him ...".
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since I am not officially connected with the journal IJTP,
> and I do not know the details of the history of the paper MS 000925,
> I hesistate to comment,
> but
> I do count everyone involved as good friends,
> and so I would like to say some things that may (or may not) be helpful.
>
> This afternoon (before I saw the above-referenced e-mails)
> I visited David Finkelstein in his office.
>
> In conversation, one subject that came up was the situation with the
> Los Alamos archives. David was appalled that a threat might be
> made against an entire institution (such as Clark Atlanta) based
> on their support of any individual (such as Carlos Castro),
> and he and I both agreed that the situation is regrettable.
>
> I mentioned that Carlos Castro felt that his ability to publish
> was being impaired, and David mentioned that any pending paper
> submitted by Carlos Castro would be evaluated fairly,
> and would not be rejected because of pressure from Los Alamos
> or from anywhere else.
>
> The associate editor that you, Alex, mention, is also a friend
> of mine, and an advanced graduate student of David's, Andrei Galiautdinov.
>
> Andrei grew up in the Former Soviet Union (Ukraine), and is
> only just now beginning to be involved in the refereeing process.
>
> Only a few weeks ago he and I had a long talk about the
> responsibility of refereeing, and I told him what I used to do
> when I used to be actively refereeing papers:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1 - I never refereed anonymously, but always had my name and e-mail
> address made available.
>
> 2 - When I rejected papers (as I sometimes did), it was usually for one
> of two reasons:
>
> a - The paper was out of date, in that more recent work had
> superceded the material in the paper. This case would occur,
> for example, in papers from authors in places with poor
> library resources (prior to the existence of the web archives),
> and I tried to be explicit in telling the author a reference to
> the later work and encouraging the author to pursue the subject
> further, so that a revised or future paper would advance the
> understanding of the subject.
>
> b - The paper was not sufficiently self-contained, as for example
> a paper that stated a result, and then referred to a proof of
> that result in a paper (by the same author) that was not
> published in a journal that the average reader could find
> in the average library (again, this was prior to the existence
> of the web archives). In such cases I encouraged the author
> to write a more self-contained paper, without self-references to
> hard-to-find papers for proof of necessary results.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Maybe it is possible that Andrei thought that the paper MS 000925
> would be more understandable if it were more self-contained
> and
> maybe Andrei did not make himself clear in his efforts at communication
> about the paper,
> but
> since Andrei is out of town for 2 or 3 weeks I will not be able to
> ask him directly until then, when he returns to Atlanta,
> and
> since I have not seen the paper, I cannot express any opinion
> as to whether it would be better if some things were added to it
> to make it more self-contained.
>
> Further,
> since I don't know who is actually refereeing the paper,
> I don't know whether Andrei was trying to communicate his own opinion
> or the opinion of some other referee.
>
> What I do know is that I feel that Andrei is an honorable person,
> who is adapting to life in the USA after life in the Former Soviet Union,
> and
> that if he sees that he has not communicated clearly in this matter,
> I believe that he will make a great effort to make clear communication
> about it in the future (after he gets back to Atlanta).
>
> I don't know whether the above is any help at all,
> but I hope that it is not totally unhelpful.
>
> Tony 25 October 2000
>
> PS - Some years ago I had a very unpleasant experience with refereeing
> by a journal out of Singapore, and since then I have refused to be
> involved in any way in the refereeing process, either as author or
> referee in any journal, a refusal on principle that I do not plan to change.
>
> PPS - I also sent this message to
> castro@ts.infn.it and david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu
> but it does not show in the header you will receive
> because of my confusion in e-mail settings, etc.
From ???@??? Wed Oct 25 22:21:02 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.170] (ip170.innerx.net [38.179.176.170])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id CF181370DE; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:21:42 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b61d3f485e48@[38.179.176.162]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:20:51 -0400
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: left and right
Cc: tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: 2X3e9&6Be9#2p!!M-?e9
Alex, you say that a possibility is
"... that the "left hand" does not know
what the "right hand " is doing. ...".
That could very possibly be true.
>From my experience some years ago with IJTP
(and I don't think that the situation has been changed substantially),
here is how it is set up:
David is the editor,
and
the records of IJTP, including referee reports, etc.,
are kept on a Macintosh computer in David's office.
Most of the administrative work is done by Ga Tech students
acting as assistant editors, but there is no full-time person
whose sole and only job is to administer the journal.
Sometimes more than one student might work at a time,
and sometimes there is turnover as students proceed
with their academic work.
As I said before, Andrei is new to some of this work,
and sort of learning as he goes along.
Since there is no full-time IJTP administrator
(although David is always available,
he does not do all the work himself)
it is possible for things to fall between cracks,
and for the left hand and right hand to be uncoordinated.
Usually, if this happens, the author will ask
"what has happened to my paper"
and the student/assistant and/or David will figure it out
and get things straight.
Over the years, the system has worked pretty well,
with things getting worked out to everybody's satisfactions
and papers getting published.
However,
the current situation with the Los Alamos archives is
something that to my knowledge has never happened before,
and
the relatively informal system that works OK in normal circumstances
does not appear to be so effective in these unusual circumstances.
In any event,
when Andrei gets back to Atlanta (in 2 or 3 weeks)
I will ask him about the matter.
Tony 25 October 2000
From ???@??? Thu Oct 26 00:57:25 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C12372E0
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001026033202.TQKW3598.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:32:02 -0700
Message-ID: <39F7A57A.ACDE23DD@home.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:31:06 -0700
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: left and right
References: <l03102800b61d3f485e48@[38.179.176.162]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: $:<e9kYgd9pSWd9\)"e9
Tony,
Thanks for clearing this up. I knew from Carlos's words that he considers
David as his friend and a well-wisher. It is nice to know that David holds
his ground even in the face of the complicated situation and is not going
to compromise his integrity by yielding to the blackmail ( implicit) of
all this string "mafiosi".
Best,
Alex
Tony Smith wrote:
> Alex, you say that a possibility is
> "... that the "left hand" does not know
> what the "right hand " is doing. ...".
>
> That could very possibly be true.
>
> >From my experience some years ago with IJTP
> (and I don't think that the situation has been changed substantially),
> here is how it is set up:
>
> David is the editor,
> and
> the records of IJTP, including referee reports, etc.,
> are kept on a Macintosh computer in David's office.
>
> Most of the administrative work is done by Ga Tech students
> acting as assistant editors, but there is no full-time person
> whose sole and only job is to administer the journal.
>
> Sometimes more than one student might work at a time,
> and sometimes there is turnover as students proceed
> with their academic work.
>
> As I said before, Andrei is new to some of this work,
> and sort of learning as he goes along.
>
> Since there is no full-time IJTP administrator
> (although David is always available,
> he does not do all the work himself)
> it is possible for things to fall between cracks,
> and for the left hand and right hand to be uncoordinated.
>
> Usually, if this happens, the author will ask
> "what has happened to my paper"
> and the student/assistant and/or David will figure it out
> and get things straight.
>
> Over the years, the system has worked pretty well,
> with things getting worked out to everybody's satisfactions
> and papers getting published.
>
> However,
> the current situation with the Los Alamos archives is
> something that to my knowledge has never happened before,
> and
> the relatively informal system that works OK in normal circumstances
> does not appear to be so effective in these unusual circumstances.
>
> In any event,
> when Andrei gets back to Atlanta (in 2 or 3 weeks)
> I will ask him about the matter.
>
> Tony 25 October 2000
From ???@??? Fri Oct 27 02:36:34 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08823731D
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:26:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA18128;
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:25:22 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010261325.PAA18128@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: tsmith@innerx.net, agranik1@home.com,
david.finkelstein@physics.gatech.edu, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
Subject: Re: IJTP paper and misunderstanding
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:50:30 EDT."
<l03102801b61d15e7a57c@[38.179.176.162]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:25:21 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: n9%!!E*:e9ogjd9Z*T!!
Dear Tony :
THANK you so much for everything. Like I said earlier, I have a lot respect for
David, as a scientist and as a person, and I can understand any reservations he
may have in getting involved in this nasty business with Paul Ginsparg.
I have nothing against re-writing the paper to make it more self
contained...etc...However, the paper contains ALL of the relevant and accesible
references for anybody to see. We listed the title of the papers in the
references, the journal reference AND the LANL archive number.
Any advanced undergraduate student/graduate student can understand/follow this
paper. I asked Alex to give this paper as a take home examination for his
students on QM since the paper is just an extension of the harmonic oscillator
to the Clifford manifolds case. The Entropy is just the logarithm of the
degeneracy of the quantum states. Stirling's formula yields the ordinary
Bekenstein-Hawking relation plus the logarithmic corrections, and higher order
ones, in one simple scoop.
Of course, at the end, this requires to use the 't Hooft-Susskind holographic
principle of Black Holes , well known among string theorists. This is the only
stuff that an undergraduate/graduate student may not grasp.
As fas as I know, I do NOT know of any derivation of the
logarithmic corrections to the Black Hole Entropy as concise and elegant as
this. Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli, John Baez and Bob Wald have never done it;
the string people have never done it; Hawking and Bekenstein have never done
it...I think it is a nice paper worthy of David's journal. If Pezzaglia
published a paper in IJTP this paper belongs there because our approach is
NO different than his.
As I told Davvid, the hard problem now is to prove how the Black Hole Geometry
emerges as the long distance limit of the more fundamental C-space geometry.
This is another story. This involves Loop spaces and other more sophisticated
techniques.
Notice that the papers in the physics/archives are those that were removed by
Ginsparg from hep-th and quant-ph.
I have contacted the Justice Department, Civil Rights Division, they will take
care of Los Alamos ( hopefully ).
Best wishes
Carlos
From ???@??? Fri Oct 27 02:36:35 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D848537296
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:54:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA04298;
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:53:32 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010261553.RAA04298@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, agranik1@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Cc: jgiraldo@ciencias.ciencias.unal.edu.co, boedo@apollo.gat.com
Subject: Letter to the Justice Dept.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:53:32 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: >~Y!!A6id9NZ;e9<+pd9
Dear Carlos, Alex and Tony ( and Jairo and Armando):
Here you have a copy of the letter sent ( fax ) to the Dept. of Justice,
Assistant Attorney General Office, Civil Rights Division.
Thank you for ALL your support.
Jairo Giraldo is the president of the Colombian Association of Physicists.
He has voiced his complaint to the APS. Armando Boedo is a very closed friend of mine,
also a physicist who has been etremely concerned about this case.
He asked me to do what we already did : write to the bossses of los Alamos,...... to NO
avail. So with this people the only option you have is this option below for you to read.
They just did not think Mohahmed and I do not have the guts to sue. Well, they
were wrong. Mohammed and I are not secretaries/slaves working under dictators who can
be pushed around.
Thank you
Best wishes
Carlos
------- Forwarded Message
>From Dr. Carlos Castro
e-mail : castro@ctsps.cau.edu
castro@ts.infn.it
Mr. Bill Lann Lee
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
P.O Box 65808
Washinton, D.C. 20035-5808
Subject : Another Scandal at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratories in New Mexico.
Dtae : October, 24, 2000
Dear. Assistant Attorney General
I wish to report to your agency a very serious case for you, with potential dire
legal ramifications, if you are interested. It deals with the systematic boycott ,
discrimination, sabotage, harassmnet.... and censorship of my scientific work by some people,
in particular, Paul Gisnparg at the Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico.
Paul Gisnparg is in charge of the Los Alamos electronic physics archives ,
the database where physics and mathematics preprints from all over the world
are submitted electronically and stored on a dialy basis for people to read.
Los Alamos is Federally funded with US Tax payers money ( I am a US citizen );
therefore this individual , Paul Ginsparg has no right to CENSOR my papers
posted on the net. It goes against the first ammendment of the US constitution.
Barring indecent, pornographic material.....SOUND scientific papers from
acredited University institutions have the right to be posted in the Los Alamos
archives. This is the reason why the US government ( Tax payers ) pays for such
a service.
We are not talking of quackery here. I was recently nominated for the Peter
Gruber Foundation awards of 150,000 $ for the development of the New Relativity
theory that is an extension of String and M theory and that may very well lead
to a quantization of gravity and a unification of all four fundamental forces.
I got my Bc.Science from MIT under the supervision of Philip Morrison ( editor
of Scientific American, famous astrophysicist who has made lots of TV programs
and by a twist of fate one of the the first US scientists who set feet in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki after the bombing ) and the Ph.D from UT Austin under Yuval Ne'eman.
Yuval Ne'eman and Murray Gellmann were the ones who came up with the idea of
quarks.
I have now almost 50 ( refereed ) papers, most of them published in top first
rate international journals, I have given conferences ALL over the planet
etc.....
I am not a quack and I belong to the NSF Center for Theoretical Studies of
Physical Systems in Atlanta and now I am visiting the Physics Dept. of the
University of Trieste located at the International Center for Theoretical
Physics, in Trieste, Italy. For these reasons I consider that I have the
inaleniable right to post my scientific and sound work in Los Alamos archives.
What has happened is that some members of the scientific community;
in particular the string theory scientists ,
have coerced Paul Ginsparg to remove, sabotage, boycott and censor my
work so it will not be made accesible to the public. They want to discredit me
by saying that Castro's New Relativity is crazy and should not be allowed to
appear in the daily preprint listings because it may contaminate young open
minds, for example.
They are threatened by these radical new ideas and, roughly speaking,
they are doing to me what the Church did with Galileo.
This is unacceptable in a democracy, in the new millennium.
Why ? the Usual : Ego, Money and Cushy jobs. They are receiving large amounts
of money from several institutions. If a new radical idea or theory comes along
that may compete with theirs, this may result in less funding for them.
In essence, they are trying to protect their interests. I am only fighting for
the inaleniable right to PUBLISH my work in the Los Alamos preprint archives
which were created SOLELY for that purpose.
You see, the los Alamos listings is nothing but a PO BOX; a depositary of
information. Those papers are NOT referreed by anybody like journals are.
Paul Ginsparg is not God who can decide what can be posted or not. His job
is to run the archives NOT to referee the thousands of papers that appear
every month.
I have proof, in writing, how this censorship started due to the interference
of other scientists, outside Los Alamos, who contacted Paul Ginsparg to censor
and sabotage my work and to prevent it from being made public.
I have proof, in writing, where Paul Ginsparg accuses me of being an
" OBVIOUS NUT " ; that ALL my papers are abject nonsense ( Has he read all of my
almost 50 published papers in the journals ????) ; that he will BAN the WHOLE
University I am associated with , Clark Atlanta University , from posting papers
in the Los Alamos Archives if they defend me ; that they should be embarassed
for having me; that I am an idiot who has wasted more time than the average ten
idiots in fighting for his right to post his papers in the Los Alamos web;
etc...
In addition to this scandal; there is a parallel and related scandal going on
at Cambridge University in England.
It involves a friend and colleague of mine , Prof. Mohammed S. El Naschie, who
is a professor in Cambridge and Chief Editor of a very important scientific
journal : the Journal of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. They are
also giving my friend a hard time because he has published my work on the New
Relativity in his journal. He is just the Chief Editor and publishes papers
that are recommended by the referees. We became friends because he was very
interested in my work.
According to Paul Ginsparg, there was an "undisclosed denunciation" from
" somebody " in DAMTP, Cambridge, UK --they refuse to say who it was;
maybe it was all a lie --that my professor friend in Cambridge has forged his
affiliation with Cambridge University...and this is yet another reason why my
work has been banned from the Los Alamos archives. I wrote one paper with my
colleague in Cambridge and posted it on the Los Alamos web.
I do not want to flood you with too many details.
In any case, we both have contacted a series of lawyers on both sides of
Atlantic to consider a law suit in the tens of millions of dollars.
To sue Paul Gisnparg, ( becuase he is a US government employee ) will cost in
the one million dollar range. This is the estimate given to me by the lawyers.
For this reason the lawyers have recommended that the law suit should range in
the 10 million dollar digit.
I am pledging to you as Acting Assitant Attorney General of the Civil Rights
Division, to find a competent lawyer ( s ) who will be able to assist me in
this sordid case of censorship, discrimination, boycott, sabotage, harassment,
infrigement of academic freedom....and file a law suit against Paul Ginsparg
in Los Alamos.
I am a US citizen, hispanic , working in the NSF Center for Theoretical Studies
of Physical Systems at Clark Atlanta University, a mainly black institution.
I honestly think that I deserve the right to ask for help from your office
without having the need to spend an exorbitant amount of money to bring to
Justice these individuals ( government employees ) who have broken the law over
and over again.
Since we still do not know if the mysterious Cambridge person exists, who
wrongly and falsely accused my professor friend in Cambridge University of being
an impostor, it is wise not to consider dealing with Cambridge University at
this point, until we know if this false and wrong accusation really took place
or not. If it did, then this person in Cambridge who wrongly and falsely accused
my professor friend of forgery will be himself/herself sued for several
millions of pounds.
Concluding :
1-Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) has debased his responsability by threatening
( black mailing ) to black list Clark Atlanta University from having access
to the Federally funded Los Alamos archives if they defend me and champion my
research.
2- Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) has engaged in a systematic, concerted, deliberate
practice of censorship, boycott, sabotage....and professional harassment against
members of the greater academic community : My colleagues , coworkers and myself.
3-Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) has damaged my reputation with a devastating
power that I may never be able to practice science in the future, let alone earn
a decent living
4- I am a Hispanic scientist working at Clark Atlanta , primordially a Black University.
Therefore, when Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) threatened/black mailed the co-Director
of my center in Atlanta, Carlos Handy, by writing :
" we will cease to consider Clark Atlanta
as an accredited responsible institution"...
they are repugnantly implying that " minorities cannot present a valid theory "
( The New Relativity theory ).
5- Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) has violated one of the most
inalienable rights that a scientist has : the right to publish and the right to
academic freedom.
6- Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) has adopted a patronizing attitude towards my
Center in Atlanta by saying that they are the ones who should be embarrased
by having me.
7- Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) has defamed me by accusing me of being an
" obvious nut " that ALL my papers are abject nonsense, etc..
In addition, he has partaken in the defamation of my colleague,
Prof. Mohhamed S. El Naschie by accusing him of forging his affiliation
with Cambridge University, UK.
Etc................
Because Paul Ginsparg ( Los Alamos ) will hide under the auspices of the
US government, because Los Alamos is a branch of the DOE and NSF, my lawyers
have argued that a law suit will be a very protacted and costly one.
And most probably will take years and years. For these reasons I am
contacting the Justice Department to study this sordid case ,
and to do JUSTICE in a swiftly manner.
I have WRITTEN PROOF of ALL what has been said here.
Isn't it IRONIC that Los Alamos could not prevent a Chinese scientist from
leaking files , containing ultra secret sensitive US nuclear
technology to China, during 20 years or so, and that, at the same time,
they are censoring my work from the internet ????
Thank you very much
Sincerely yours
Carlos Castro
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------- End of Forwarded Message
From ???@??? Fri Oct 27 02:36:44 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB9137431
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA17105;
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:13:55 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010261913.VAA17105@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: agranik1@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: Re: Letter to the Justice Dept.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:38:30 PDT."
<39F86C15.E844569E@home.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:13:55 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: ~0=!!'`nd9g)6e9M='e9
Dear Alex ( and Tony ) :
Of course I would ask Tony's wise advice in this legal matters.
I faxed the letter directly because this makes the case more human. In the
future, I will not write, say. ..anything without Tony's wisdom.
Your sketch about the paper re-writing is fine with me.
Best wishes
Carlos
From ???@??? Fri Oct 27 19:18:49 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54371372F7
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:14:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA21569;
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:13:41 +0200 (MET DST)
Message-Id: <200010272113.XAA21569@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: agranik1@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net, handyman@ctsps.cau.edu
Subject: I just sent a new paper to Los Alamos and .....
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:13:41 +0200
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: 4[Ke9e,Ud9MN_d9(AEe9
Dear Alex, Carlos and Tony :
I just sent today ( from ITALY) a new paper to Los Alamos. I sent it to the
hep-th/archives and as USUAL the ROBOT automatically removed it and
re-routed it to the General Physics Archives. Surprised ? No.
Here is the confirmation number of the General Physics Category....
This paper below clearly does NOT belong there, for God's sake !!!
It was sent to hep-th archives because IT BELONGS
THERE. This paper is based on work done by guys at Los Alamos itself...
by Emil Motolla and company !!! Motolla belongs to the Theory Group.
I will submit it to Physical Review Letters and if the Editor, Robert Garisto
sabotages it by saying this paper is of no interest to the physics community and
that is speculative, blah blah....I will sue those bastards as well.
I am sending Alex a tex file because this paper agrees very much with the
e-mails he just sent me today about obtaining Einstein's gravity as the
infrared limit of C-geometry. If Tony and Carlos want the tex file of this 4
page paper I will send it also as Spectral Evidence.
While living in Austin I became very close friends of the direct descendants of
the Salem Witches. No joke, this is true. There is a 3 hour film, with Vanessa
Redgrave called " 3 Sovereigns for Sarah " about the Towne sisters. William
Towne came to New England directly from England and had 3 daughters ( and boys )
which are among the 20-30 Salem witches.
One of the 3 sisters ( Towne sisters), Sarah, was not hanged but sent to prison
and survived until the crown of England set her free. The descendents of the
Towne family ( boys ) are among my friends in Austin.
My friend in Austin is also named William Towne...and the first series of The
New Relativity papers is dedicated to his father, a True American Gentleman,
Marvin Towne, for helping me out when I was having financial troubles.
If you see the 3 hour film with Vanessa Redgrave about the Salem
witch trials you will find out that most of the evidence against them was
based on SPECTRAl EVIDENCE....meaning " GHOSTS"...
Concluding :
Paul Gisnparg ( and his Robot , the RobCop ) have removed a paper that is
entirely mainstream and belongs to the hep-th/archives and which is based on
work done by Emil Motolla himself at los Alamos...
What's new ???
My friend Matti Pitkannen, who is divorced, 4 children,
who lost the war against the " alpha chimpanzees " of theoretical physics in
Helsinki, unemployed for the rest of his life, had problems ALSO with
Ginsparg's Rob-Cop armies. Matti Pitkannen calls it the most sophisticated
weapons of repression of the artifical intellingence revolution.
WHY did Pitkkanen lose the war and is now living of the pennies alloted by the
Finnish Government...because he did not SUE those bastards when he sould have.
Now it is too late for him. His advice to me is :
SUE the bone marrows off those people and make a stew.
Tony Smith wanted MORE " spectral " evidence....well.... here he HAS IT !!!
Best wishes
Carlos
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: no-reply@arXiv.org
Delivery-Date: Fri Oct 27 22:28:03 2000
Received: from uuu.lanl.gov (infnts.ts.infn.it [140.105.6.150])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA11537
for <castro@axpts2.ts.infn.it>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:28:03 +0200 (MET
DST)
Received: from uuu.lanl.gov (204.121.6.59) by INFNTS with TCP/IP SMTP; Fri, 27
OCT 00 22:28 CET
Received: from xxx.lanl.gov (xxx.lanl.gov [204.121.6.57])
by uuu.lanl.gov (x.x.x/x.x.x) with ESMTP id OAA19479
for <castro@ts.infn.it>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:28:46 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (from e-prints@localhost)
by xxx.lanl.gov (x.x.x/x.x.x) id OAA09540;
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:28:56 -0600
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:28:56 -0600
Message-Id: <200010272028.OAA09540@xxx.lanl.gov>
Precedence: bulk
X-Note: e-print archive software written by PG at LANL (8/91,...,4/99) GTDA
X-Supported-By: U.S. National Science Foundation, Agreement 9413208 (3/95-9/00)
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: send mail ONLY to physics <no-reply@arXiv.org>
Reply-To: <physics@arXiv.org>
Subject: RE: Put (physics/0010072, 5kb)
To verify abstract and postscript, use http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0010072
User: physics/0010072, Password: 9cfww (access still password restricted)
See http://arXiv.org/help/uploads for additional uses of password.
Abstract will appear in mailing scheduled to begin two hours before
Sunday midnight US Mountain time (i.e., Mon 30 Oct 00 04:00:00 GMT).
Your title and abstract will appear in the next mailing exactly as below.
(Except possibly for the NUMBER which IS NOT OFFICIAL until the next mailing
of abstracts [22:00 LANL time Sun - Thu] -- it cannot be used to cross-list
to other archives [e.g., from cs to math or physics] until after that time.)
To correct any problems, you MUST replace NOW.
Replacements on the same day (until the 17:00 LANL time deadline Mon - Fri)
do not generate a revised date line, so do not hesitate to replace submission
until everything is perfect (including removal of extraneous files).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\
Paper: physics/0010072
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:28:52 GMT (5kb)
Title: On the four dimensional Conformal Anomaly, Fractal Spacetime and the
Fine Structure Constant
Author: Carlos Castro
Comments: 4 pages, Tex file
Subj-class: General Physics
\\
Antoniadis, Mazur and Mottola ( AMM) two years ago computed the intrinsic
Hausdorff dimension of spacetime at the infrared fixed point of the quantum
conformal factor in $4D$ Gravity. The fractal dimension was determined by the
coefficient of the Gauss-Bonnet topological term associated with the conformal
gravitational anomaly and was found to be greater than $4$. It is explicitly
shown how one can relate the value of the Hausdorff dimension computed by AMM
to the universal dimensional fluctuation of spacetime $\epsilon $ given by
$\phi^3/2$, where $\phi$ is the Golden Mean $0.618..$. Based on the infrared
scaling limit of the theory and using recent Renormalization Group arguments by
El Naschie, we conjecture that the unknown coefficient $Q^2$, associated with
the four dimensional gravitational conformal anomaly, could be precisely equal
to the inverse fine structure constant values ranging between $137.036 $ and
$137.081$. Our results generate decimal digits up to any $arbitrary$ number.
\\
Contains:
text: 12226 bytes
Stored as: 0010072.gz (5kb)
Warnings:
Author 1: Carlos Castro
PS files:
0010072.ps.gz (24kb)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Successful submission to the archives can be a significant source of pride
and accomplishment. It entails many serious responsibilities: if you cannot
check off on all of the items below, then you should replace your submission.
___ The Title/Author fields above are correct.
___ The abstract is complete, correct, and wrapped correctly.
___ Capitalization in title correct (we automatically lower case titles
with excessive use of upper case, but we get some acronyms incorrect
-- replace with uppercase letters only where they should be).
___ The authors are listed in `Firstname Lastname' order.
___ any anonymous ftp or http pointers to additional files are given in
standard url format (e.g. ftp://myhost.domain/path/filename.ext
or http://mywwwhost.domain/path/filename.html)
___ Periods are separated by a space from the end of any URL's
___ Any Journal-ref is a complete bibliographic reference to an already
published version (includes volume and page number info in the case
of a print journal).
___ No raw (uncompressed, un-uuencoded) PostScript was submitted (by e-mail)
___ All files including PostScript figures were included.
___ This paper has not been `put' to any other arXiv.org e-print archives.
___ The full text of the paper itself is available directly from the archive.
___ The submission can be retrieved uncorrupted (TRY IT).
Submitters who repeatedly leave errors uncorrected may lose submission
privilege to the archives. (Replace using the current tentative papernumber
unless notified otherwise.) If your abstract is improperly wrapped, note that
abstract linefill stops at whitespace indentation (e.g. a blank line or a line
indented with space(s) denotes a new paragraph,and won't be wrapped).
For further hints, keep reading or get the help text by sending a
message with the subject `help', or see http://arXiv.org/help/ . Guidelines
for a properly formatted abstract are given in prep.txt (available via the
`get' command or at http://arXiv.org/help/prep ). If you have not already
read this, please read it now to ensure that you have followed the guidelines.
The archive admins detest correcting abstracts and your negligence will be
noted, with the possible result of losing future `put' privileges.
If you need to replace this paper, use the `replace' command described in the
help text (available via `help' or at http://arXiv.org/help/). The format
of the resubmission itself (with \\'s delineating title/abs etc.) is the same
as for `put'. Your entry will not officially appear in the listings until the
next mailing goes out (and thus cannot yet be accessed via `find' or
`listings' commands), and your papernumber may be shifted until then so it is
preferable to wait a day before cross-listing, etc.
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE `put' TO RESUBMIT THIS PAPER, since that
will result in a new paper# which will have to be removed by hand
(and in consequence your email address will automatically be added
to a permanent blacklist whose subsequent queries are ignored).
Instead use the replace command (described in the help text).
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE `put' TO SUBMIT THIS PAPER TO ANOTHER
e-print archive within the arXiv system, since the system needs to know that
it is one submission and not multiple. Instead send a cross-list command
(described in the help text) to the other e-print archive to generate a
cross-listing for it.
Figures should not be appended to the TeX file. Instead all of your files
should be tarred, compressed, and uuencoded, and submitted with the `put'
command or replaced with the `replace' command. The utility `uufiles'
available via `get uufiles' or at http://arXiv.org/faq/uufaq.html will
help (`get uufiles' returns the Unix version; use the web link or ftp to
ftp://arXiv.org/software for other platforms).
If you have e-mailed raw PostScript, then it may have been corrupted
in transmission. PostScript should always be compressed and uuencoded
before sending via e-mail -- again, `uufiles' will help with this process.
If your mailer limits the size of your outgoing files, use the `fput' command
(Use `get fput.txt' or http://arXiv.org/help/fput for further information),
or web upload (see http://arXiv.org/help/uploads ).
***NOTES***
1) Avoid excessive cross-listings: cross-listings of a paper on archive-x to
archive-y are intended for subjects of *direct* interest to subscribers of
archive-y. Those subscribers of archive-y who have peripheral or direct
interest in the subjects of archive-x are already subscribed to archive-x and
neither need nor desire multiple receipt of the same abstract. (In particular,
it is exceedingly unlikely that you could decide what is of direct interest to
readers of archive-y if you yourself are not an active reader of archive-y.)
2) Statistical fabrication shows that `replaced' papers are not immediately
rerequested so if your intent is to communicate correct research
it is in your interest to submit a final version in the first place,
i.e. *avoid premature submissions*.
If you absolutely need to replace the paper, it would be helpful to indicate
in the Comments: field (i.e. below Authors: ) how serious is the revision
(e.g. major conceptual changes, minor grammatical changes, etc.), and include
as a commented header in the revised version of the paper a guide to the
changes so that interested parties need not be bothered to reaccess
unnecessarily.
------- End of Forwarded Message
From ???@??? Fri Oct 27 19:18:51 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D46372C4
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:25:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from castro@localhost)
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA27433
for tsmith@innerx.net; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:25:00 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:25:00 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
Message-Id: <200010272125.XAA27433@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: new paper
X-UIDL: L-e!!>f-e9!*~e9MJ#!!
\centerline{ \bf On the Four Dimensional Conformal Anomaly, Fractal Spacetime}
\centerline{\bf and the Fine Structure Constant}
\bigskip
\centerline{ Carlos Castro}
\smallskip
\centerline { Center for Theoretical Studies of Physical Systems}
\centerline{ Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta, Georgia, 30314}
\bigskip
\centerline{ October 2000 }
\bigskip
\centerline{\bf Abstract}
Antoniadis, Mazur and Mottola ( AMM) two years ago
computed the intrinsic Hausdorff dimension of spacetime at the
infrared fixed point of the quantum conformal factor in $4D$ Gravity.
The fractal dimension was determined by the coefficient of the Gauss-Bonnet
topological term associated with the conformal gravitational anomaly and was found
to be greater than $4$. It is explicitly shown how one can relate the value of the
Hausdorff dimension computed by AMM to the universal dimensional
fluctuation of spacetime $\epsilon $ given by $\phi^3/2$, where $\phi$ is the Golden
Mean $0.618..$. Based on the infrared scaling limit of the theory and using
recent Renormalization Group arguments by El Naschie,
we conjecture that the unknown coefficient $Q^2$, associated with the four
dimensional gravitational conformal anomaly, could be precisely equal to the
inverse fine structure constant values ranging between $137.036 $ and $137.081$.
Our results generate decimal digits up to any $arbitrary$ number.
\bigskip
\centerline {\bf The Conformal Anomaly and Fractal Spacetime at Large Scales }
\bigskip
Antoniadis, Mazur and Mottola [1] more than two years ago
computed the intrinsic Hausdorff dimension of spacetime at the
infrared fixed point of the quantum conformal factor in $4D$ Gravity.
The fractal dimension was determined by the coefficient of the Gauss-Bonnet $topological$
term associated with the conformal anomaly : $trace~ anomaly$ and was found to be greater than $4$.
They also discussed a plausible physical mechanism for the
$screening$ of the cosmological constant at very large distances
in full agreeemnt with Nottale's work [7] and other results obtained by
the present author and collaborators [6].
The Hausdorff dimension for spacetime is related to the geodesic distance
$l(x, x')$ between points $x, x'$ and the volume $V_l$ enclosed by the
spherical surface radius equal to $l$ . The scaling relation between the two is
$V_l \sim l^{d_H}$. For large $l$, this scaling relation
defines the intrinsic dimension $d_H$ of the space.
In $2D$ quantum gravity [2,3] the most appropriate way to calculate the $d_H$ is by the heat kernel methods
associated with the Laplacian operator $D_\mu D^\mu$ and the proper time $s$ :
$$ K_2 (x, x'; s, g ) = < x| e^{ - s D_\mu D^\mu } |x'> . \eqno (1) $$
The heat kernel $K_2$ has a short distance expansion whose anomalous scaling behaviour can be
calculated based on the standard techniques pioneered by B. de Witt in the sixties. The average
geodesic length-squared that a scalar particle is able to diffuse after a proper time $s$ is given by :
$$l^2_s \equiv {1 \over V} ~<~\int d^2x \sqrt g ~\int d^2 x' \sqrt {g'} ~ l^2 K_2 (x, x'; s, g ) ~>_V .
\eqno ( 2 ) $$
where the average is taken with respect to the fixed volume Liouville field theory partition function.
By expanding the heat Kernel $K_2( x, x'; s; g) $ in a power series $s$ one can see that
$$l^2_s \sim s ~~~ as ~~~ s \rightarrow 0. \eqno (3a) $$
which is the standard result undergoing Brownian motion.
The relevant scaling behaviour ( with area/volume )
is the expectation value of the following quantity appearing in the
heat kernel expansion, under the conformal scalings of the metric
$g_{ab} = exp ( 2 \sigma) {\bar g} _{ab}$ :
$$s~<~\int d^2x \sqrt g ~ D_\mu D^\mu ~f_\epsilon (x, x_o) ~>_V~ =
s~<~\int d^2x \sqrt {{\bar g} } ~ {\bar D} _\mu {\bar D}^\mu ~{\bar f} _\epsilon (x, x_o) ~>_V ~
\sim s V^{{\alpha_{ -1} \over \alpha_1} }
\eqno ( 3b) $$
where $f_\epsilon (x, x')$ is any smooth function with support only for distances of $l(x,x') \sim
|x - x'|< \epsilon$. As $\epsilon$ goes to zero it approaches a delta function :
$(1/\sqrt g) \delta^2 ( x-x')$
The finite area/volume scaling behaviour of the last proportionality factor follows by a constant
shift in the Liouville field $ \sigma \rightarrow \sigma + \sigma_o $. The $ \alpha_n$ are the
anomalous scaling dimensions associated with the fields of the Liouville field theory
and are given in terms of the weights $n$ by the formulae :
$$\alpha_n = n + { \alpha^2_n \over Q^2 } = { 2n \over 1 + \sqrt { 1 - { 4n \over Q^2 } } } . \eqno (4a) $$
where the charge $ Q^2$ is determined in terms of the matter central charge ( anomaly coefficient )
$c_m$ by :
$$Q^2 = { 25 - c_m \over 6}. ~~~D = 2 .\eqno (4b) $$
We refer to the references [1,2,3 ] for further details. The main result is that the scaling behaviour
of $s$ under a global area/volume scaling
$$ s \rightarrow \lambda^{ - { \alpha_{-1} \over \alpha_1} } s . \eqno(5) $$
will determine the Hausdorff Dimension $d_H$ from the relation :
$$ l^2_s \sim s \sim V_l^{ - { \alpha_{-1} \over \alpha_1} } \sim
l^{ - d_H { \alpha_{-1} \over \alpha_1} } . \eqno (6) $$
giving finally :
$$d_H = -2 { \alpha_1 \over \alpha_{-1} } = 2~ { \sqrt { 25 - c_m } + \sqrt { 49 - c_m } \over
\sqrt { 25 - c_m } + \sqrt { 1 - c_m } }~ \ge 2.~~~ D = 2 \eqno (7) $$
The authors [1] repeated this analyis associated with the conformaly anomaly in $ D = 4 $ where
the charge $Q^2$ is now the coefficient of the Gauss-Bonnet curvature squared terms
present in the four dimensional conformal anomaly :
$$ Q^2 = { 1\over 180} ( N_S + { 11\over 2} N_{WF} + 62N_V - 28 ) + Q^2_{grav} . \eqno (8) $$
the $unknown$ charge $Q^2$ is given in terms of the number of free scalars $N_S$ , Weyl fermions $N_{WF} $ and vector
fields $N_{VF}$. While $ - 28$ and the $unknown$ value of the gravitational charge
$Q^2_{grav}$ are the contributions of the
spin-$0$ conformal factor and spin-$2$ graviton fields of the metric itself.
The scaling behaviour of the proper time under a global scaling of the volume $ V \rightarrow \lambda V$ in $ D = 4$
is :
$$ s \rightarrow \lambda^{ - { \beta_8\over \beta_o } } s . \eqno (9) $$
where $\beta_o, \beta_8$ are the conformal scaling exponents corresponding to the volume operator and the
higher quartic derivative operator ( square of the Laplacian plus curvature and other derivative terms).
The Hausdorff dimension is given, in the long scale limit, by the relation :
$$l^4_s \sim s \sim V_l^{ - { \beta_8\over \beta_o } } \sim
l_s^{ -d_H { \beta_8\over \beta_o } } \eqno (10)$$
then the Haussdorff dimension of fractal spacetime is explicitly given by :
$$d_H = - 4 {\beta_0 \over \beta_8} =
4 ~ { 1 + \sqrt { 1 + {8\over Q^2 } } \over 1 + \sqrt { 1 - {8\over Q^2 }}} ~ \ge 4. \eqno (11) $$
This final expression for the spacetime fractal dimension is {\bf all} we need to show that the $unknown$
charge $ Q^2 $ in eq-(8) can be equated with the inverse of the fine structure constant $ 137.036....$
( given by the Particle data booklet ).
The authors [1] emhasized that the value of $ Q^2$ was uncertain , principally because of
the unknown infrared contributions of gravitons to the value of $Q^2_{grav} $ which appears in the r.h.s of
eq-(8).
To calculate what the value of $Q^2$ may be , which in turn will yield the value of
$Q^2_{grav}$ present in the r.h.s of (8), we conjecture that this value can be related to the
inverse of the fine structure constant $ 137.036..$ based on the recent papers by the author,
Granik and El Naschie [4,6] . The main results of [4] and [6] is that there is a
$universal$ dimensional fluctuation in Nature given in terms of the Golden Mean by :
$$ \Delta D_{ fluctuation} = \epsilon = {\phi^3 \over 2} = \phi - { 1\over 2 } =
(0.618 -{1\over 2 }) =
0.118..... ~ where~ \phi+1 = {1\over \phi} \Rightarrow \phi = { \sqrt {5} - 1 \over 2 }=
0.618....\eqno (12) $$
and that the inverse of the fine structure constant [4] , ranging between $137.036...$ and $137.081..$,
can be thought
of as an $internal$ dimension or a $central$ charge, using the language of Irrational Conformal field Theory,
as Eddington envision long ago. This line of reasoning is nothing but following the path
chartered by Einstein himself on the geometrization of $all$ physics, with the new ingredient that
we believe that Nature {\bf is} fractal at its core.
A simple numerical calculation shows that by simply setting $ Q^2 = 137.036.... $
inside the basic equation (11) yields automatically nothing more, nothing else but $ 4 +\epsilon $
for the Hausdorff dimension of fractal spacetime , where
$\epsilon $ is the universal dimensional fluctuation given by $\phi^3/2$ :
$$4 ~ { 1 + \sqrt { 1 + {8\over 137.036 } } \over 1 + \sqrt { 1 - {8\over 137.036 } } } = 4.11856 \sim
4 + { \phi^3 \over 2} = 4.118.....~~~~ !!!!!!. \eqno (13)$$
Is this a {\bf numerical concidence} or {\bf design } ????
El Naschie [4] has presented very convincing arguments regarding the unfication of gravity with the
electroweak and strong forces, based on Renormalization Group Arguments,
that there is a very deep and explicit connection bewteen
Nottale's Scale Relativity [7] , Irrational Conformal Field theory,
El Naschie's Cantorian-Fractal spacetime and the
New Extended Scale Relativity formulated by the author [5], and
that the inverse fine structure constant ( an internal dimension or charge )
plays a fundamental role in determining the
scaling regimes of the electroweak and strong interation ,
and the hierarchy of the $16, 6 $ internal dimensions, present in the Heterotic string
theory and its compactifications , from $ 26 \rightarrow 10 \rightarrow 4 $ .
Argyris et al [8] have recently
shown how a fractalization of spacetime may be an intrinsic property of all processes in Nature,
from the microworld to cosmos, having well defined signatures in
Cosmic Strings and in the phenomenon of Spontaneous Symmetry breaking .
\centerline { Acknowledegements }
\smallskip
The author thanks M. S. El Naschie for his hospitality
and for the series of discussions which led to this work.
Also we wish to thank S.Ansoldi for his assitance and to E. Spallucci, E. Gozzi, M. Pavsic,
A. Granik, T. Smith, C. Handy. A. Schoeller, A. Boedo, J.Mahecha, J. Giraldo, L. Baquero
for their support.
\bigskip
\centerline {\bf References }
1. Antoniadis, P. Mazur and E. Mottola : `` Fractal Geometry of Quantum Spacetime at Large Scales ``
hep-th/9808070 .
Antoniadis, P. Mazur and E. Mottola : Nuc. Phys. {\bf B 388 } (1992 ) 627
2- V. Knizhnik, A. Polyakov and A. Zamolodchikov : Mod. Phys. Lett {\bf A 3 }
(1988 ) 819.
F. David, Mod. Phys. Lett {\bf A 3 } (1988) 1651.
F. David : Nuc. Phys. {\bf B 257} (1985) 45
3- J. Distler, H. Kawai : Nuc. Phys. {\bf B 257} (1985) 509
V. Kazakov, Phys. Lett { \bf B 150} ( 1985) 282
L. Ambjorn, B. Durhuus, J. Frohlich and P. Orland : Nuc. Phys. {\bf B 270 } (1986) 457 .
4- M. S. El Naschie : `` Coupled oscillations and mode locking of Quantum Gravity fields,
Scale Relativity and ${\cal E}^{(\infty)}$ space ``.
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals {\bf 12} (2001) 179-192.
5-C. Castro : `' Hints of a New Relativity Principle from $p$-Brane Quantum Mechanics ``
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals {\bf 11} (2000) 1721
C. Castro : `` Noncommutative Geometry, Negative Probablities and
Cantorian Fractal Spacetime `` Chaos, Solitons and Fractals {\bf 12} (2001) 101-104
6-C. Castro, A. Granik : `` Scale Relativity in ${\cal E}^{(\infty)}$ space and the Average Dimension of the World ' To appear in
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. hep-th/0004152
7- L. Nottale : `` Fractal Spacetime and Microphysics : Towards a theory of Scale
Relativity. World Scientific , 1993.
L. Nottale : `` La Relativite dans touss ses Etats `` Hachette Literature, Paris 1998.
8- J. Argyris, C. Ciubotarium H. Matuttis : `` Fractal space, cosmic strings and spontaneous
symmetry breaking ``
Chaos, Solitons and Fractals {\bf 12} (2001) 1-48
\bye
}
From ???@??? Fri Oct 27 20:32:57 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.154] (ip154.innerx.net [38.179.176.154])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id B49173751B; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102800b61fbef9b5a2@[38.179.176.162]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 19:50:11 -0400
To: castro@ts.infn.it
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: new paper
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, agranik1@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: aNCe9,'p!!"L[d9pAbd9
Carlos (Castro),
thanks for sending in the new paper,
and for letting me know the result of its submission to the archives.
As you say, the response makes it quite clear
that the archives have no intention of making a proper effort
to settle the matter on a reasonable basis.
Therefore, if you take legal action, I understand.
----------------------------------------------------------
Further,
I saw your letter to Bill Lann Lee of the Justice Department,
dated 24 October 2000. It seems to me that it contains enough
information for him to initiate an investigation of the matter.
As I have stated, I will try to cooperate with any such investigation.
You said in an earlier message:
"... I faxed the letter directly because
this makes the case more human. ...".
I agree with your doing so, because the letter is not a formal
legal pleading as to which there are some rules and customs
as to form and language.
Rather,
it is more like testimonial evidence, which is in my opinion
much more effective when it is in words spontaneosly spoken by a witness,
and
is releatively ineffective if it is recycled and rephrased by lawyers.
Please let me know the progress of the matter.
One thing that I would really like to see,
as I have said before,
is a debate (whether at an institution like Stanford or Harvard,
or on TV, or in print media) that fairly presents:
the establishment point of view
versus
alternative points of view
so that interested and intelligent lay people (hopefully, some of
them still exist) could decide for themselves whether:
1 - only one (establishment) point of view should be permitted
to be described in public, so that the public will be
uniformly of one mind;
or
2 - many points of view should be described in public in the hope
that the one that is best for physics (perhaps not the same
as the one that is best for establishment physicists) might prevail.
I think that the spirit of Feynman would make it very hard for
the Ginsparg types (advocates of alternative 1) to prevail in such a debate.
Tony 27 October 2000
From ???@??? Sun Oct 29 15:18:10 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.82])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C48F437215
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from home.com ([24.176.152.68]) by femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with ESMTP
id <20001029181521.DAEO14736.femail2.sdc1.sfba.home.com@home.com>
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:15:21 -0800
Message-ID: <39FC68FB.6EAC9D36@home.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 10:14:20 -0800
From: Alex Granik <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: New result on the coupling constant
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: #,1e9iVa!!M+$!!#IH!!
Tony,
1) Carlos asked me to send you a new result on the coupling constant. In
his latest paper ( which, as you know, was once again railroaded to
physics-arch) he connected Hausdorf dimensions with the charge Q^2.
Using our ( and Mohammed) previous results that the Hausdorf dimension
of our world is
4+ \phi^3/2= 4.1180339887499
where \phi is the golden mean ( [sqrt{5}/2 -1)]/2) he then set ( by
hand the value of Q^2 to be equal to the inverse of the fine structure
constant (1/137.0359907392...) and obtained the following Hausdorf
dimension
d_H = 4.11856..
Later he asked me to do the inverse problem: by using the Hausdorf
dimension of 4+(\phi^3)/2 find the respective value of the charge Q^2.
It has turned out that this can be done in closed form. As a result, I (
and later Carlos himself) obtained the following
Q^2 = 137.6414382304
which differs from the one calculated directly from the definition of
the inverse of the fine structure constant 137.0359907392 by 4.4%.
That discrepancy might be explained as the screening by gravity of the
QED effects. Without taking into account the fractal structure of the
world on the Planck scale this screening is impossible to detect, since
it is so small.
Alex
From ???@??? Tue Oct 31 23:31:57 2000
Return-Path: <castro@ts.infn.it>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (axpts2.ts.infn.it [140.105.31.36])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC1937212
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:45:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from axpts2.ts.infn.it (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by axpts2.ts.infn.it (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA14005;
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:35:33 +0100 (MET)
Message-Id: <200010311935.UAA14005@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
To: npb@elsevier.nl, jgiraldo@ciencias.ciencias.unal.edu.co,
gbekkum@mediaone.net, a_schoeller@hotmail.com
Cc: handyman@ctsps.cau.edu, agranik1@home.com, tsmith@innerx.net
Subject: NPB and the Scandal at Los Alamos
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:35:33 +0100
From: Carlos Castro (Spallucci) <castro@ts.infn.it>
X-UIDL: /:#"!Lild9ZKA!!F3>!!
Dear Mr Smid and Schuddenboon :
I am writing to both of you, as chief editors of Nuclear Physics B,
to notify you of a scandal going on at Los Alamos involving Paul Ginsparg
who is in charge of the Los Alamos electronic archives.
What does it have to do with NPB ?
Around January 28, 2000 I received an e-mail from Mr. Schuddenboon,
in reference to NUCPHB 7713, containing the attachment letter
where some members of the Editorial Board ADMITTED looking up my
recent work on the New Relativity Theory in the Los Alamos archives,
and found it OUTLANDISH.
This work HAD nothing to do , whatsoever, with the mainstream, sound and relevant paper NUCPHB 7713
which was ACCEPTED by the two referees of NPB ( Elsevier Publishers requested
the electronic file for publication ). A few ( almost 3 ) months later I received a
highly suspicious decination letter. I will not repeat the whole story.
We have enough reasons to believe that H. Ooguri sabotaged the paper and prevented it
from publication. NPB never denied that we were correct in pointing out Ooguri as
" The " board member who " had shown a GREAT interest in this work "
to later contradict himself by writing :
" This paper is of NO physical interest " .....Then, Why was he interested ?
The preposterous thing is that the paper accepted by referees of
NPB had HAD nothing to do whatsoever with the papers on the New
Relativity Thoery which your Board members found "outlandish".
Why did your board members look at my work in Los Alamos ? I thought your two referees
had already scrutinized my paper thoroughly and accepted it ?
Since that moment on, January 28, Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos has been REMOVING
illegally my work from the hep-th/archives. I will not go on into the details of the
ugly battle which has ensued as a result of this deliberate, systematic and concerted boycott
and censosrhip of my work on the web.
Los Alamos is a Federally funded US institution with US tax payers money.
CENSORSHIP , etc... is illegal in the USA. You don't have to be
a Sherlock Holmes -- based on the very own ADMISSION by members of the
Editorial board of NPB -- to deduce that some " honorable " members of the NPB
Editorial board MAY HAVE CONTACTED Paul Ginsparg to warn him that Castro
was ( is ) writing outlandish papers ( New Relativity ) and posting them in the
LANL hep-th archives.
Or more precisely :
to warn Paul Ginsparg to " scrutinize my work more thoroughly .."
as the letter from Mr. Chuddenboon indicates. The sad thing is that
not only Ginsparg may have decided to follow your plausible suggestion of scrutinizing my papers
( and moves by manually removing papers that the Robot does not )
but also he has decided to break the US law in many other counts, over and over again.
Since Paul Ginsparg has BROKEN the US Law, over and over again, a government
investigation is going on at this moment, pertaining to ALL the details of how
this censorship began. I had NO choice but to inform you, today, that I had NO other choice
but to let the US government know about the contents of the letter by
Mr. Chuddenboon where NPB ADMITS looking into my work on the New Relativity and found it outlandish...
I hope that I will not be banned from submitting papers to NPB by letting the US government know of your
admission letter !!!
On the contrary :
I imagine that Elsevier Science Publishers and NPB will cooperate fully and totally with this
investigation of the US government and with the legal relevant authorities of
Dutch government, and will let the interested parties know WHO were the board mmebers who may have contacted
Paul Ginsparg to warn him that Castro was writing outlandish papers on the LANL archives.
Since many of the NPB board mmebers ARE US citizens, if they broke the US law by participating
in this censorship and boycott of my work , they may be legally liable as well.
If Elsevier Science Ltd and NPB reserves the right of secrecy in this investigation,
then another viable avenue of action Elsevier Science Publishers and NPB could take, to prevent this sort of
dire legal problems from happening in the future, is to REMOVE swiftly those persons ( involved in this ugly incident )
from the NPB Editorial board since they have debased their
responsabilities as Editorial Board members by being willing participants
in this illegal censorhip and sabotage of my work.
Why wrongly suspect of NPB ? It was precisely AFTER I got the letter from Mr. Scuddenboon
( Jan , 28 , 2000 ) that Paul Ginsparg began his boycott of my work.
Since this is a very highly correlated physical and REAL process, the probability that NPB was actively
involved is very high. Or is this just a mere numerical and delusional coincidence ?
To finalize this ordeal, let me just add something that clearly corroborates a
conccerted attack of me PERSONALLY, based on the earlier boycott of my work by whom
we believe to be Ooguri. Like I said above , NPB never denied that we were right in thinking of Ooguri.
I had recently received a SUBJECTIVE and INADMISSABLE report
from ONE of your referees pertaining my last paper NUCPHB 8822.
This type of subjective reports like :
" The refereee was unable to follow the paper and unwilling to go through
the references ...therefore we reject the paper "
is NOT up to the standards of a journal like NPB.
A journal like NPB should have contacted another competent referee.
I am including below my last e-mail message sent to Mr. F. van Leeuven .
I requested 12 DAYS ago to see the other (positive) report from the
other referee ( I assume it was positive otherwise I would have seen it)
but IT WAS NEVER SENT. I honestly believe that I have the right to see both the
subjective inadmissable report as well as the positive one.
Could you please send it to me as soon as possible. 12 days shoud have been enough time.
I sincerely hope that NPB finds a COMPETENT referee who can follow my paper NUCPHB 8822 .
And if if he cannot follow it initially, lets hope that he
is willing to go through the references, as a competent referee should.
Thank you so much
Sincerely yours
Carlos Castro
------- Forwarded Message
To: NUCLEAR PHYSICS B <npb@elsevier.nl>
Subject: Re: NUCPHB 8822
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:42:23 +0200."
- --------
Dear NPB ( F. van Leeuwen ) :
Thank you very much for your response.
I hope NPB will be willing to find another referee who will not
have problems in understanding the crux of the paper.
Could you please forward me the report of the other referee.
Thank you very much
Sincerely yours
Carlos Castro
------- End of Forwarded Message
From ???@??? Tue Oct 31 23:32:00 2000
Return-Path: <agranik1@home.com>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from uop.edu (MailServ.bannet.uop.edu [138.9.5.3])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 7697B370CC
for <tsmith@innerx.net>; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:43:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from home.com
([138.9.48.51])
by mailserv.cc.uop.edu; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:46:53 -0800
Message-ID: <39FF3E8A.94CF209F@home.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:50:02 -0800
From: "A.Granik" <agranik1@home.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" <castro@ts.infn.it>
Cc: "tsmith@innerx.net" <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: NPB and the Scandal at Los Alamos
References: <200010311935.UAA14005@axpts2.ts.infn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UIDL: OX-e9("Z!!9AA!!I\!e9
Dear Carlos,
I am interested to know whether you discussed your letter to NP(B) with Tony? The reason of me asking this is that if the
Just. Dept. has started an investigation on the basis of your previous letter to JD then how wise is to send a letter to
NP(B) where there is an implicit threat of extending the investigation to include some of their members?
Since you do not know for sure that
a) JD launched an investigation of LANL,
and
b) JD is carrying out an investigation involving NP(B)
it seems premature to w tell them so. If points a) and b) re not there it will not play well.
Those my initial thoughts. You can say that I am excessively careful. But in this situation better be safe than sorry. One
has to hit with a clenched fist, that is having all the aces. Since I am a layman in legal matters, it is important to find
out what Tony think about that.
Best,
Alex
"Carlos Castro (Spallucci)" wrote:
> Dear Mr Smid and Schuddenboon :
>
> I am writing to both of you, as chief editors of Nuclear Physics B,
> to notify you of a scandal going on at Los Alamos involving Paul Ginsparg
> who is in charge of the Los Alamos electronic archives.
>
> What does it have to do with NPB ?
>
> Around January 28, 2000 I received an e-mail from Mr. Schuddenboon,
> in reference to NUCPHB 7713, containing the attachment letter
> where some members of the Editorial Board ADMITTED looking up my
> recent work on the New Relativity Theory in the Los Alamos archives,
> and found it OUTLANDISH.
>
> This work HAD nothing to do , whatsoever, with the mainstream, sound and relevant paper NUCPHB 7713
> which was ACCEPTED by the two referees of NPB ( Elsevier Publishers requested
> the electronic file for publication ). A few ( almost 3 ) months later I received a
> highly suspicious decination letter. I will not repeat the whole story.
> We have enough reasons to believe that H. Ooguri sabotaged the paper and prevented it
> from publication. NPB never denied that we were correct in pointing out Ooguri as
>
> " The " board member who " had shown a GREAT interest in this work "
>
> to later contradict himself by writing :
>
> " This paper is of NO physical interest " .....Then, Why was he interested ?
>
> The preposterous thing is that the paper accepted by referees of
> NPB had HAD nothing to do whatsoever with the papers on the New
> Relativity Thoery which your Board members found "outlandish".
> Why did your board members look at my work in Los Alamos ? I thought your two referees
> had already scrutinized my paper thoroughly and accepted it ?
>
> Since that moment on, January 28, Paul Ginsparg at Los Alamos has been REMOVING
> illegally my work from the hep-th/archives. I will not go on into the details of the
> ugly battle which has ensued as a result of this deliberate, systematic and concerted boycott
> and censosrhip of my work on the web.
>
> Los Alamos is a Federally funded US institution with US tax payers money.
> CENSORSHIP , etc... is illegal in the USA. You don't have to be
> a Sherlock Holmes -- based on the very own ADMISSION by members of the
> Editorial board of NPB -- to deduce that some " honorable " members of the NPB
> Editorial board MAY HAVE CONTACTED Paul Ginsparg to warn him that Castro
> was ( is ) writing outlandish papers ( New Relativity ) and posting them in the
> LANL hep-th archives.
>
> Or more precisely :
>
> to warn Paul Ginsparg to " scrutinize my work more thoroughly .."
> as the letter from Mr. Chuddenboon indicates. The sad thing is that
> not only Ginsparg may have decided to follow your plausible suggestion of scrutinizing my papers
> ( and moves by manually removing papers that the Robot does not )
> but also he has decided to break the US law in many other counts, over and over again.
>
> Since Paul Ginsparg has BROKEN the US Law, over and over again, a government
> investigation is going on at this moment, pertaining to ALL the details of how
> this censorship began. I had NO choice but to inform you, today, that I had NO other choice
> but to let the US government know about the contents of the letter by
> Mr. Chuddenboon where NPB ADMITS looking into my work on the New Relativity and found it outlandish...
> I hope that I will not be banned from submitting papers to NPB by letting the US government know of your
> admission letter !!!
>
> On the contrary :
>
> I imagine that Elsevier Science Publishers and NPB will cooperate fully and totally with this
> investigation of the US government and with the legal relevant authorities of
> Dutch government, and will let the interested parties know WHO were the board mmebers who may have contacted
> Paul Ginsparg to warn him that Castro was writing outlandish papers on the LANL archives.
> Since many of the NPB board mmebers ARE US citizens, if they broke the US law by participating
> in this censorship and boycott of my work , they may be legally liable as well.
>
> If Elsevier Science Ltd and NPB reserves the right of secrecy in this investigation,
> then another viable avenue of action Elsevier Science Publishers and NPB could take, to prevent this sort of
> dire legal problems from happening in the future, is to REMOVE swiftly those persons ( involved in this ugly incident )
> from the NPB Editorial board since they have debased their
> responsabilities as Editorial Board members by being willing participants
> in this illegal censorhip and sabotage of my work.
>
> Why wrongly suspect of NPB ? It was precisely AFTER I got the letter from Mr. Scuddenboon
> ( Jan , 28 , 2000 ) that Paul Ginsparg began his boycott of my work.
> Since this is a very highly correlated physical and REAL process, the probability that NPB was actively
> involved is very high. Or is this just a mere numerical and delusional coincidence ?
>
> To finalize this ordeal, let me just add something that clearly corroborates a
> conccerted attack of me PERSONALLY, based on the earlier boycott of my work by whom
> we believe to be Ooguri. Like I said above , NPB never denied that we were right in thinking of Ooguri.
>
> I had recently received a SUBJECTIVE and INADMISSABLE report
> from ONE of your referees pertaining my last paper NUCPHB 8822.
> This type of subjective reports like :
>
> " The refereee was unable to follow the paper and unwilling to go through
> the references ...therefore we reject the paper "
>
> is NOT up to the standards of a journal like NPB.
> A journal like NPB should have contacted another competent referee.
>
> I am including below my last e-mail message sent to Mr. F. van Leeuven .
> I requested 12 DAYS ago to see the other (positive) report from the
> other referee ( I assume it was positive otherwise I would have seen it)
> but IT WAS NEVER SENT. I honestly believe that I have the right to see both the
> subjective inadmissable report as well as the positive one.
>
> Could you please send it to me as soon as possible. 12 days shoud have been enough time.
>
> I sincerely hope that NPB finds a COMPETENT referee who can follow my paper NUCPHB 8822 .
> And if if he cannot follow it initially, lets hope that he
> is willing to go through the references, as a competent referee should.
>
> Thank you so much
>
> Sincerely yours
>
> Carlos Castro
>
> ------- Forwarded Message
>
> To: NUCLEAR PHYSICS B <npb@elsevier.nl>
> Subject: Re: NUCPHB 8822
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:42:23 +0200."
>
> - --------
> Dear NPB ( F. van Leeuwen ) :
>
> Thank you very much for your response.
>
> I hope NPB will be willing to find another referee who will not
> have problems in understanding the crux of the paper.
>
> Could you please forward me the report of the other referee.
>
> Thank you very much
>
> Sincerely yours
>
> Carlos Castro
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
From ???@??? Wed Nov 01 00:17:39 2000
Return-Path: <tsmith@innerx.net>
Delivered-To: tsmith@innerx.net
Received: from [38.179.176.158] (ip158.innerx.net [38.179.176.158])
by leap.innerx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 9724C37237; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:01:36 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: tsmith@gmail.innerx.net
Message-Id: <l03102801b6255168c27c@[38.179.176.158]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:00:43 -0500
To: agranik1@home.com
From: Tony Smith <tsmith@innerx.net>
Subject: Re: NPB and government agencies
Cc: castro@ts.infn.it, tsmith@innerx.net
X-UIDL: Le6!!RoVd9?K/!!TF]d9
Alex,
I received a copy of the message to NPB at the same time that
you received it. Your comments probably more in line with what
I might have done had I been in Carlos's position,
but different people have different personalities,
and maybe you and I are more cautious,
but, like you, I would prefer that NPB be contacted by
the US Justice Department in pursuit of its investigation
because the US Justice Department carries more weight
than an individual. Also, sometimes departments of government
like to do their investigations in their own way,
and I have (when involved in cases in which I have represented
clients who were "on the same side" as government agencies
such as the FBI) usually tried to be helpful in supplying
information to the agency, but to let the agency take the
lead in doing its own investigation.
That means giving up active control of the direction
of the investigation and related litigation,
but the agency has a lot more resources that I (or my clients) do,
and I have found that in my approach the agency is usually helpful
when it takes the lead role.
However, I am not saying that other approaches might not
work as well or better. It may be that I am too cautious.
At any rate, in the final analysis the case is Carlos's case,
and Carlos should handle it in the way that he feels is best.
Tony 31 October 2000