This is for you Oleg

A Darwinist commenter here is rather paranoid about me and is on the verge of stalking.  He makes these random judgements about what I should write and if I don’t write what he thinks I should write, then I’m obviously not who I say I am.  He also makes judgements about what I should know and then simply decides that I don’t know what I should – without even asking – and declares that I am not who I say I am.  To test his theory, he proposed that I break copyright law, which is especially ironic considering that you’d think that he would know, being a published scholar and all, that one can not simply post other people’s journal articles on a personal blog.  This, of course, hurts his credibility – turn about is fair play – because I have no idea that he is the person he says he is.

Anyway, to prove that I do have access to journals, I thought I would describe a figure from a paper – in the Journal of Applied Physics – I found that I think no one else here will find interesting.  It’s by Chern, et. al. and features magnets.  Figure 1 (a) shows a circle with arrows going around it in a CCW fashion in multiple layers.  Figure 1 (b) and (c) are much the same with the arrows going in different directions and patterns.  Riveting stuff, this is.  Perhaps our Darwinist commenter can tell us how many times this boring paper has been cited?  If he can conduct himself in a civil manner, then I’ll allow his post to clear the moderation filter and he can give us all this information.  So, how about it, Oleg?  And, how’s Baltimore this time of year?

Advertisements

12 responses to “This is for you Oleg

  1. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Hello, professorsmith. Baltimore is fine. It’s nice to be back after three weeks on the West Coast.

    Thank you for taking interest in my work and for commenting on its merits. It is indeed riveting stuff: we have found that nanosized magnets contain very unusual excitations: half-vortices. Fig. 1(c) shows an anti-half-vortex. While you may not find such things interesting, professional physicists do: our work on this subject has been published in a top physics journal Physical Review Letters, featured in the Virtual Journal of Nanoscale Science and Technology, and cited in Physics Today. The paper you have examined is a technical note describing the shape of these excitations in the limit relevant to experimental systems. It isn’t meant to entertain lay people.

    The answer to your question — how many times this boring paper has been cited? — is available on the article’s main page, doi:10.1063/1.2168439. Papers citing this article are listed right below the References tab. Why don’t you tell us what that number is.

  2. professorsmith

    And I find I must chide your “knowledge” again. Those are the listed references of the paper, not how many times it has been referenced.

  3. “A Darwinist commenter here is rather paranoid about me and is on the verge of stalking.”

    Why don’t you tell him to piss off, and ban him? Really, now.

  4. professorsmith

    He’s moderated, so his posts will only see the light of day if I allow them to. He is a good source for outrageous Darwinist BS sometimes…

    Thanks for visiting. I hope you stick around Mike. It would be nice to get more ID friendly comments.

  5. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    professorsmith,

    You should either ban me outright or let all my comments through. Selective posting is akin to quote mining.

    And let me know whether you were able to locate the CITING ARTICLES tab. I’m curious.

  6. Hi Professor,

    I am the ID Pleasurian that Olegt mentioned one time. I have been enjoying reading your blog.

  7. professorsmith

    Welcome Mr. Brookfield, glad to see you here.

    Mr. Tchernyshyov,
    I disagree that moderating some comments constitutes quote mining. I feel that you need to be policed for a while at least until you prove that you can behave.

    Further, I did not locate the “Citing Articles” tab as it doesn’t exist. On Web of Science, however, I found that your paper has been cited once:

    Hertel R, Schneider CM
    Exchange explosions: Magnetization dynamics during vortex-antivortex annihilation
    PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 97 (17): Art. No. 177202 OCT 27 2006

    This paper, in return, has been cited 7 times. Ouch, that’s gotta hurt.

  8. professorsmith

    Mr. Tchernyshyov,
    I don’t take orders from you. I did not post your supposedly courteous comment because it was not germane to the topic at hand and would only serve to use up bandwidth. When you are in the dog house, then your posts look more like clutter. When you gain back my good graces, then posts like that one will once again go through. Making demands is not the way to prove that you can be civil and polite.

    And, BTW, me choosing to moderate my blog doesn’t even come close to censorship.

  9. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    professorsmith,

    Do you write reviews at amazon.com under the nickname The Professor? I am impressed by that reviewer’s reading ability: 4-5 books a month!

  10. professorsmith

    Sorry, but that’s not me.

  11. Oleg Tchernyshyov

    Too bad. What’s your take on irreducible complexity? Is carbon atom irreducibly complex? 🙂

    P.S. Your new posts don’t link properly: The Battle for Gonzalez goes to a 404 error.

  12. professorsmith

    I’m aware of that. I’m trying to figure out why. If you have any ideas, please let me know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s