Garofeeder and Ali Dent following sandgeorge's profile

silverwolf88 said:(...) You can try to act like an expert until you actually take a look at my derivation for kinetic energy

And is that derivation from that same paper that absolutely nobody has seen either? 😁

Jerry White29 said:..
Your anger toward Arthur Smith15 and Alexander Thompson isn't helping. You're just draining your own mental energy and tanking your performance.

We're talking about trolls here.

I started ignoring Arthur Smith15 entirely after I submitted my research to those American mathematics journals—I already shared the link


I honestly feel bad for the people over at alternativa who still bother debating them, totally unaware they're just dealing with trolls.

silverwolf88 said:We're dealing with nothing but trolls here.

I make it a point to ignore Arthur Smith15, especially after I submitted my research to several American mathematical journals—which I've already linked


I honestly feel bad for those folks from alternativa who still bother engaging in debates with them, completely unaware that they're just playing with trolls.

Just because you claim something happened doesn't make it an objective fact. You could just as easily claim you were standing on Mars, and then try to point back to this post later as if it were some kind of proof.😁

You are being incredibly cryptic about this research paper of yours. You have no trouble flooding various threads with your little videos and those sausage-shaped formulas and derivations, yet you won't post the actual work here, record it, or even provide a link. What gives? It seems to me that you love to boast about your "intellectual prowess," which strongly suggests that the paper simply doesn't exist.

I have already informed you that the Council requires a preliminary review from number E therefore and a few selected thinkers from the forum before proceeding.

Arthur Smith15 said:Just because you typed it out doesn't make it an absolute fact. You could have claimed you were walking on Mars, and then tried to point back to this post later as, you know, "proof." 😁

You’re being incredibly cagey about this work of yours; you’ll happily flood threads with your little videos and those sausage-shaped formulas and derivations, but you won't actually post the work here, film it, or link it—anything, really. How does that work? It seems pretty obvious you love bragging about your "genius," which suggests the work simply—doesn't exist.

I already told you: the Council requires a preliminary review from number E and a handful of selected thinkers from this forum before any official review happens.

Are you still trolling because you think everyone else is an idiot and you're some mastermind who can manipulate people against my expertise?

Doesn't the Council have access to my info? If they don't, how could they possibly verify whether I've submitted my derivations to American mathematical journals?

I'm writing for others now because this troll keeps trying to drag my reputation through the mud by lying about me (while hiding behind a pseudonym).

The reason I haven't uploaded to YouTube is that when authors sign contracts, they grant media outlets certain rights to use their work. That's why I set many of my original songs to private—because I can't monetize them.

So, rather than uploading my presentation work—even though it's supposedly allowed in general informative media—I'm looking for an English translator. I can't publish my work in America because there isn't a physical journal here specifically for applied mathematical analysis. In developed countries, things are different; they have various journals interested in mathematical derivations for kinetic energy, and the contracts and pay are much better than what we deal with here. My issue is that I don't know English, not that I don't know math.

Jerry White29, do you seriously support trolls like this?

Djokice, I’d be happy to handle that translation for you. How much were you looking to put down on your credit card?

We can get a contract signed upfront—honestly, it doesn't matter if it's you or a guardian, as long as they have the legal standing and some actual assets I can lean on—to guarantee the quality, protect the copyright, and make sure the payment actually clears.

If you don't trust me, though, there are plenty of other services out there that would jump at the chance to help, like https://www.prevoditelj-teksta.com/cijena-prijevoda/

Alexander Thompson said:Look, DJ, I’d be happy to translate your work for you. How much are you willing to pay via credit card?

We can sign a contract upfront—whether it's you or your legal guardian, I don't care, as long as they have business capacity and some assets I can lean on—with a quality guarantee, copyright protection, and a guarantee of payment.

If you don't trust me, there are plenty of services that will gladly do it for you, like https://www.translation-services.com/pricing/

How exactly does someone owning copyrighted works qualify as "unemployed"—maybe because music on the internet was basically free until recently?

But don't try to pull one over on me by suggesting that my unpaid work isn't actually work just because of how the music industry shifted.

So, you're lying if you claim that 32 copyrighted works don't constitute labor. Or maybe there's someone else pulling the strings behind that lie?

Here is some recent news regarding disability claims and psychiatric cases
https://www.cnn.com/news/national/disability-claims-court-ruling...

Can some psychiatrist, by fraudulently claiming I'm incapacitated and refusing to recognize those 32 copyrighted works, effectively block the publication of my mathematical derivations—especially if the peer reviewers can't even dispute the accuracy of those proofs?

Are psychiatrists even qualified to peer-review mathematics?

You're back at it again, hiding behind a pseudonym and rambling about my "incapacity" and "guardians." Is this forum heading toward a total meltdown this time?

For everyone else here, let me remind you: even before I wrote my paper, I was posting these threads
https://www.americanforum.com/showthread.php?...3#post81648983
https://www.americanforum.com/showthread.php?...5#post81646885

silverwolf88 said:
...
Jerry White29, are you seriously backing trolls like these?

George, look, this isn't even about whether I'm siding with Alexander Thompson or Arthur Smith15; the real issue here is that you clearly haven't bothered to read, follow, or listen to a single word we've said regarding the actual process of writing and publishing scientific papers. I haven't been keeping close tabs on your posts for a while, but from what I can see, things have spiraled completely out of control.

Honestly, you should take a moment to ask yourself why you’re blocked from so many subforums. It’s pretty obvious that you carry a massive chunk of the blame for that. Everything you say eventually devolves into some ego trip about how you wear leggings and how tough you are, while people like us—who don't bother with the leggings—are somehow "judging" you or preventing you from publishing research.

Just stop picking fights with Alexander Thompson and Arthur Smith15. For all we know, they might actually sit on the Council (though I have no idea which Council 😬 or where on earth they'd be sitting on any kind of Council)

silverwolf88 said:Doesn't that Council have access to all my data? I fail to see how they could possibly claim they had no way of verifying whether I personally submitted my work to various American mathematical journals.

I have already told you once before—stop obsessing over the Council. The Council exists to manage you, not the other way around. For every single time you bring up the Council, I’m docking you 20 points.

...In that case, I'd much rather skip uploading my presentation altogether.

I’m doing the exact same thing with my revolutionary breakthrough in quantum physics—keeping it tucked away in a desk drawer for now. It's simply not the right time. 😁

silverwolf88 said:Is it actually reasonable to expect psychiatrists to possess any level of competence when it comes to peer-reviewing work within the realm of mathematics? It seems like an absurd proposition to me.

The psychiatrists on the Council certainly are.

Well, there's no going back now. It’s already happened.

silverwolf88 said:How could someone who produces copyrighted works be considered "unemployed"? Maybe because music online was basically free until recently?

But hey, don't try to pull the fast one on me and claim my work—which I do for free—isn't actually a job just because of how the music industry shifted.

So, yeah, you're lying if you're trying to argue that 31 plus 1 copyrighted works don't count as labor. Or maybe there’s someone else pulling the strings behind that lie?

Here’s some recent news about disability claims and psychiatric cases in the States


Can some psychiatrist, by mislabeling me as disabled and refusing to recognize my 31 plus 1 copyrighted works, effectively block me from publishing my mathematical derivations? Especially if the peer reviewers can't even find a flaw in the math itself?

I mean, are psychiatrists even qualified to review high-level mathematics?

You're back at it again, hiding behind a pseudonym and rambling about my "disability" and legal guardians... is this forum headed for a total meltdown this time?

For everyone else out there, just a reminder that I was posting stuff like this long before I ever wrote down my mathematical derivations. Check the links:

Yeah, it's work. Pointless and useless, I guess, but still work.

Jerry White29 said:George, this isn't about whether I’m backing Alexander Thompson and Arthur Smith15—it's about the fact that you haven't actually read, followed, or listened to a single thing we've said regarding how to write and publish a scientific paper. I haven't been following your posts for long, but it's clear things have escalated.

But seriously, ask yourself why you're blocked from so many subforums. It's pretty obvious you bear a massive share of the blame here. You try to turn everything back to the idea that you're wearing leggings and "acting tough," while those of us not in leggings are judging you for it and refusing to let you publish your papers.

Stop picking fights with Alexander Thompson and Arthur Smith15. For all we know, they might even sit on the Council (though I have no clue which 😬 or how they ended up on some Council)

Since the forum almost shut down recently, it seems the whole "leggings" issue has been resolved.

The reality, however, is that a specific group of people—who claim to hold advanced degrees—write on alternativa just to belittle the knowledge held by the alternative crowd. I can only hope that this group isn't opposing me simply because I've posted about astrology, regardless of the math topics. When I wrote about mathematics, I didn't bring up astrology; I provided links related to math and showed comparisons between my own calculations and data from astronomical observations. Yet, none of that was enough evidence for you all to actually review my mathematical derivations. Meanwhile, those who didn't challenge my knowledge—like FOIevac, Trajla CeDeE, and number E therefore
—are the ones being banned. So, it's as if they don't even have the right to express an opinion on certain calculations.

Alexander Thompson, if you don't stop writing about my psychiatric diagnoses, my legal guardians, and my fitness to work—and using that to claim my mathematical derivations are wrong—our relationship is going to get even more complicated. I've already discussed this with several people: where does he get the right to treat me so poorly?

I don't know if you are actually a reviewer for the American mathematical journals to which I submitted my derivations for kinetic energy, or if you've even looked at my work to conclude that my derivations are incorrect.

It would be pretty strange if you were judging derivations you haven't even seen.

Have you actually reviewed my derivations?

Arthur Smith15 said:I already told you—don't worry about the Council; the Council exists to worry about you. Every time you mention them, you lose 20 points.

Same here—I’m keeping my revolutionary quantum physics research tucked away in a drawer for now... it's just not the right time. 😁

The Council's psychiatrists, more like.

But anyway...

LOL, it definitely wouldn't be good for those psychiatrists of yours if they started performing peer reviews in mathematical analysis. It would just make everyone suspect how corrupt some people in these institutions actually are.

Alexander Thompson said:Yeah, that's work. Pointless and useless, but work nonetheless.

Did some American math journal send you this paper directly just so you could talk trash about it?

I messed up two minor derivations—so I cut them—but as for the rest of the proofs, specifically the core ones regarding kinetic energy, I didn't find any errors. That’s why the paper ended up being about ten pages shorter.

It would be pretty strange if the peer reviewers hadn't told me to pull those two derivations and confirmed everything else was solid—stating the paper was fine to publish without them. Though, I won't get into what my editors said about it.

Look, if you don't actually get what work entails, there's no way you're gonna wrap your head around what energy really is 😬

They gave you a pretty decent answer, I guess—basically saying that whole thing of yours just isn't really their lane.

I mean, they’re clearly assuming they shouldn't be wasting time on nonsense.

No soup for you! 😬

Alexander Thompson said:Obviously, if you don't understand the work itself, you can't possibly grasp the concept of energy.😬

They gave you a polite answer—basically saying that specific thing of yours isn't their field of expertise.

What they really meant was: "We don't deal in nonsense."

It’s quite fascinating—here you are, claiming to have information on me, yet judging by your posts, I have serious doubts about your professional competence and which circles you actually run in. No one else on this forum has ever treated me the way you have.

Once I find someone to handle the translation—which I already have lined up—we'll see if the editors actually meant what you're interpreting (or if they were just complaining about being replaced by more influential figures). In the West, we have journals that utilize double-blind peer review precisely to prevent any psychological bias from interfering with the work of mathematical reviewers.

George, maybe give these folks some advice:

Alexander Thompson said:George, give these people some advice:

What else is an issue—why hasn't the whole "secretive little group" problem been dealt with on this forum yet?

silverwolf88 said:...the supposed wisdom of the alternativa crowd.

George, what you just wrote there is a complete oxymoron.

silverwolf88 said:I honestly can't tell if you're some kind of reviewer working for those American mathematical journals I submitted my derivations for—you know, the ones involving kinetic energy—and if you’re actually the one who looked over my work, which would explain why you're so convinced that I botched the derivations.

Look, George, I’m not some self-proclaimed "reviewer," but I do serve as a peer reviewer for several foreign academic journals.

silverwolf88 said:It would be pretty damn weird if you started passing judgment on excerpts that you haven't even laid eyes on.

Look, I’m not even going to bother grading your work here, mostly because from what I can tell, you haven't actually produced anything yet.

silverwolf88 said:Did you actually bother to look through my bank statements?

Even if I had actually run into the guy in person, I still wouldn't be sitting here typing out my thoughts about reading his stuff, especially on a forum like this. Look, the process is pretty standard: once you submit a paper for peer review, you eventually get an email from the reviewer telling you exactly what needs fixing or where you need to be clearer. When that review hits your inbox, you'll see their full name and email address because, let’s face it, you might actually have to talk to them to sort things out. But here is a bit of unsolicited advice for when you do reach out: try not to brag about how well you cruised through Calculus 1, because that reviewer has likely mastered far more advanced mathematics than you could ever dream of. And for heaven's sake, leave out all that nonsense about wearing leggings, oversized anatomy, or being terrified of bulldogs. Just keep it professional.
And maybe Arthur Smith15 or Alexander Thompson actually bothered to read your work; why don't you go ask them?

Jerry White29 said:George, what you just wrote is a total oxymoron.

George, I wouldn't call myself a "reviewer," but I do serve as a peer reviewer for several foreign journals.

I’m not even going to bother grading your work—not that I've gathered you've actually written anything yet.
http://www.alternativa-forum.com/ast...roskopu-4.html

Even if I had actually met the guy, I wouldn’t be telling you I read his work—especially not on a forum like this. Look, when you submit a paper for peer review, you eventually get that email from the reviewer telling you what needs fixing or where you need to clarify your points. When that review hits your inbox, you’ll see their full name and email address because, believe it or not, you might actually have to communicate with them. When you do reach out, try to act like a professional. Don't go bragging about how you aced Calculus 1—the reviewer likely mastered way more advanced math than you ever will. And for heaven's sake, leave out the nonsense about leggings, anatomy, or being afraid of bulldogs. Just keep it professional.
Maybe Arthur Smith15 or Alexander Thompson actually read your stuff—you should go ask them.

What I post on this forum isn't meant for the reviewers—it’s my own business. I already touched on the "bulldozer" mentality once before, back when certain women—not all of them, mind you—tried to lecture me about my wardrobe. They claimed I couldn't wear leggings because I have testicles, while they could wear them just fine because they don't. Fast forward to today, and the landscape has shifted completely. Nobody is making those kinds of comments anymore—except for a handful of you here.

I can't speak for other people in the alternative scene, but you shouldn't think you've got my grasp of situational astrology until you've actually put it to the test.

If you want my alternative take on how things are playing out, here’s the link.

http://www.alternativa-forum.com/ast...roskopu-4.html

Do you seriously believe the lies from those people claiming I didn't write this?

Do you want me to send you my work so you can review it yourself? That way, you can see for once if people are actually lying to you or not.

Beyond just finishing the paper and submitting it to several American mathematical journals, I’ve printed out multiple copies to circulate. I’ve been handing them to people who have completed degrees in the natural sciences and cleared advanced mathematics—people who can actually vet my derivations and verify the logic. On top of that, I've consulted with some lawyers to figure out how to protect myself from this nonsense being pushed by the head of some shadowy, unnamed Council. They're trying to claim "work incapacity" while refusing to recognize an original academic work as actual labor. So, yes—I’m printing these copies and getting them into the hands of people who know math. I'm looking for support to defend against these organizations that try to manipulate public opinion by claiming creative works don't count as work—all while throwing around terms like "incapacity," "delusions," and "guardianship."

I used to have a decent opinion of you—until now. If you’re really going to stick up for people who clearly aren't pulling their weight, then we're done here. My respect for you just hit zero.
Are you seriously that confident? You actually think history has just ground to a halt—right at the very moment when the public is finally seeing through the corruption and watching it all get exposed?

There are plenty of external enemies out there, but what I can’t wrap my head around is when people become their own worst enemies. Take this one individual who currently holds a lot of sway—it’s honestly questionable how much longer they can stay on top if they keep acting this way. They continue to disrespect my expertise and disregard my hard work, and frankly, it baffles me that this person feels entitled to treat me poorly for such an extended period—all while a massive crowd cowers in fear of them. Then, of course, you have people like Conta, who aren't intimidated at all.

I’ve already reached out to some folks overseas—people who actually have the guts to stand up to him—and laid it all out. I showed them the actual paperwork, complete with all his signatures and official seals, just to prove exactly what he's been putting in writing.

Look, I’m not the one looking for a fight—but if I have to defend myself against every single false accusation thrown my way, then fine, let's go. I won't sit here and take it.

Is it possible some people are just stuck in the past? They seem completely oblivious to how much things have actually shifted.

Even folks at City Hall have started giving me credit after seeing what I can actually deliver—they don't view me as incompetent anymore. The tide is clearly turning.

Zecopas, let’s use some actual logic here. Hypothetically speaking—since you’re a mathematician, I assume you can follow this line of reasoning—imagine you’re an editor at a major journal like *Nature*. Suppose an influential figure pulls you aside and tells you that you aren't allowed to publish a specific paper. Now, here’s the catch: you look over the work and find absolutely zero errors in their proofs. How would you respond? Remember, your response is official, documented, and permanent. You also know that power dynamics shift; people who seem untouchable today won't be tomorrow, and you don't want to be left holding the bag for someone else's incompetence down the road. I'm posing this as a hypothetical, obviously, but how do you sophisticatedly reject a paper when you know there are flaws, without getting tangled up with people who aren't doing their jobs properly? It’s a social question: everywhere you go, you'll find honest and dishonest people, but sometimes folks are too afraid to push back against the powerful, yet they still don't want to take responsibility for those people's mistakes. Isn't it perfectly logical to politely reject a paper if you've found two errors—errors that could have been fixed so the rest of the correct proofs could actually see the light of day? I’m asking because I’m hoping you have more than just a high-end 😁 for tensor processing; I’m hoping your main CPU is actually capable of critical thinking. Look, I respect your mathematical expertise, but this is about navigating a tricky social situation
.
Maybe I really did miss something, but honestly, what are the odds that someone who has spent thirty years researching mathematical analysis and numerical mathematics would mess up eleven straight pages?

Look, I'm not entirely sure which specific branch of mathematics you specialize in—but based on what I deal with professionally—I’d suggest you head over to this thread instead: