New Rosemary Ainslie Demonstration Scheduled for Sunday, 4 August 2013

[markdansie]

Hi TK
you do not retract articles, you have them peer reviewed. It has been reviewed and found wanting. I think Mark did a great job stating the case that can only draw one conclusion. You do not have to ram everything down peoples throat.
It is also important to give people an exit, if you do not then you never have an end to hostilities.
After all these years it must be difficult for anyone to realize they were wrong.
When academic journals are published or papers are presented at conferences, they are on the basis of "this is what we thought and saw"
More often than not they are wrong for a number of reasons, and when it finally accepted people move on.
If everyone is made to feel bad about supporting their belief with passion, then we should all pack up and go home.
Was her behavior to be commended during the last few years. Probably not. Was she right, no. Do you deserve and apology. probably, will you get one? No. 


I think it a matter of moving on, this show is over. Being pedantic and seeking recriminations serves no purpose. People will form their own opinions about the personalities involved.


Kind Regards
Mark

[TinselKoala]

Hi TK
you do not retract articles, you have them peer reviewed. It has been reviewed and found wanting. I think Mark did a great job stating the case that can only draw one conclusion. You do not have to ram everything down peoples throat.

On the contrary, articles are retracted quite frequently when they are found to be wrong or fraudulent.

A retraction is a public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, diametrically reverses the original statement or ceases and desists from publishing the original statement. The retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). Retractions may or may not be accompanied by the author's further explanation as to how the original statement came to be made and/or what subsequent events, discoveries, or experiences led to the subsequent retraction. They are also in some cases accompanied by apologies for previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retraction
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/why-has-the-number-of-scientific-retractions-increased-new-study-tries-to-answer/

It is also important to give people an exit, if you do not then you never have an end to hostilities.

Ainslie has had the opportunity to "exit" for many years. This information about her bogus data and mendacity is not new!

After all these years it must be difficult for anyone to realize they were wrong.

Maybe so but that doesn't change the fact that they _are_ wrong. Don't forget... I too have put in "all these years", since 2009, and I think my work Proving Ainslie Wrong, and the factual information that I have brought to the discussion, is valuable ... and if it were NOT for me and my constant insistence that she prove her claims..... you and the rest of the world might still think she was correct or proper in her claims.

When academic journals are published or papers are presented at conferences, they are on the basis of "this is what we thought and saw"

Nope, that's simply not true. "This is what we thought and saw, and we took all possible precautions to make sure our data was correct and reproducible before we started making claims." I have gone through the process of actually having real scientific papers reporting real experiments getting published in major scientific journals. I will thus have to trust my own experiences in the matter.

More often than not they are wrong for a number of reasons, and when it finally accepted people move on.

More often than not? I don't think so, not in the journals and conference proceedings I am reading.

If everyone is made to feel bad about supporting their belief with passion, then we should all pack up and go home.

Supporting untenable positions not with facts but rather with unsupported claims and more ad-hominem insults than a second-grade class of unruly children can manage.... yes, people should indeed feel badly about stuff like that, since it is false and it wastes the time of others who might be looking on-- or trying to replicate a circuit that is a lie!
The Quantum circuit is wrong, does not jive with what she claims in the paper, and several people wasted their time trying to replicate her results... using the WRONG schematic she posted. The present schematic, the 5 transistor one, has also been shown to be false. The versions in the papers WERE NEVER ACTUALLY USED by Ainslie at all, and the version that she did use, bypasses the current sense resistor with a major current path and does not account for the full current flow in the circuit, no matter how "correctly" these values are measured.  How is it possible to justify in any way a person asking for replications, and then lying about the circuit used? And doing this _knowingly_ as she has admitted wrt the 5-transistor circuit. Yes, if you _accept_ that kind of behaviour and seek to justify or excuse it... then we should indeed all go home.

Was her behavior to be commended during the last few years. Probably not. Was she right, no. Do you deserve and apology. probably, will you get one? No. 


I think it a matter of moving on, this show is over. Being pedantic and seeking recriminations serves no purpose. People will form their own opinions about the personalities involved.


Kind Regards
Mark

The show isn't over though, as your article, citing Ainslie's letter and her link to the discredited Quantum magazine article shows.

As I have said before several times: Ainslie can stop lying and pushing her false claims at any time. She should have done so years ago, when the problems were pointed out by many different people and she could not refute them. Until she does.... "it" is not over and my role in it is not going to change.

I and others are being "pedantic" as you call it in an attempt to _teach those who need to know_ the realities of the circuit and the measurement techniques and the depths to which Ainslie can sink in her self-serving attempts to save her face.
I am not "seeking recriminations"... I just want people to tell the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You don't get that from Ainslie or Martin, as I have shown with their own words. You do get it from me. If that's not important to you or to the community of researchers that we both belong to and represent.... I think that's very sad indeed.
Yes, it would be nice to get an apology, but trolls never apologize, and Ainslie is the Troll Queen. So I do the next best thing: when she insults and makes false claims I record it, preserve it, and will display it whenever she drags out her false claims again.

"Kind regards"...... from you I accept this closing. From Ainslie it is just another illustration of her amazing hypocrisy and overweeing arrogance.
--TK

[The Boss]

Like it has already been stated on record, Rose has made this public statement : "In June and August 2013, demonstration experiments were undertaken in an effort to reproduce the experiments and results reported in this paper. As we are unable to replicate our earlier reported results, we respectfully withdraw this paper in both of its parts."

She is big enough to admit she was wrong in the above public statement at pesn.com.  I must commend her for her actions in accordance.  Let it go PEOPLE!

She has made a mistake.  We have all made mistakes.  Let he who is without a single error in life cast the first capacitor!

OM

I agree with your post entirely, except for replacing the word "commend" with "acknowledge".


Ainslie was caught in a trap for 13 years with no way out. The minute that she admitted "I was wrong" it was over.
She had a huge opportunity to move to high ground, show her real self, and rehabilitate her reputation ..so did others.


All that remains here is ego and vendetta ..boring stuff indeed.


 

[markdansie]

Thanks TK
we might agree to disagree on a few points, but I always have the upmost respect for you, your opinions and abilities.
i was always looking to bring this to some sort of conclusion, and I believe i have done so, maybe not to the extent everyone would like.
Kind Regards
Mark

[TinselKoala]

@Mark: Is it concluded? We shall see.

@The Boss: Some how I might have expected a little more support for _my position_ from you. But my expectations have changed, with every new input of data. Are you endorsing the statement that Ainslie's problems are "mistakes"? I can make, and have made, a strong case that they are not simple mistakes, but are rather deliberate deceptions.

Have you watched the "Donny Blooper Reel" where Donovan Martin lies several times in the first minute of the video? Those are not mistakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neME1s-lEZE