Posted: Oct 28, 2011 10:32 pm
by Brain man
Pulsar wrote:
In whatever state it was? Why would anyone try to publish partial attempts of a proof? He either has a proof or he doesn't. From the preprint, he definitely seems to suggest that he proved it. Now, did he?

obviously to see if anybody can break it. How many times have you worked on something and cant see clearly on the topic anymore. you have to submit it to others to break. Thats the whole idea, as to what he pronounced, its hard to tell, he has broken english in general, so little things like tense and adverbs give the wrong impression. Also they have different expression of statement and how they sequence their narratives, especially in north eastern europe. They may declare a strong intent, called putting your best foot forward (or kicking the door open) and then put limitations later. You really have to communicate directly (and politely) to get where many authors are at rather than ask me or presume. They cant all have US, UK comms levels and procedures.

Brain man wrote:how about you show us your body of creative work before you ridicule others.

I have six A1 publications in astrophysical journals, and two more in the pipeline. What about you?

2 accepted, four in progress (neuroscience) and then i could break my PHD in progress into another 4 if want to. Although its not a numbers game is it and medical area is tougher. its about progress impact. I know people who can spin out 12 publications per year from nothing important really just to hold on to their jobs. Mostly they are just reviews with a slight twist or even a summary, or modifications to other works.

Oooh "big bang blasted"! And flashy colours! How exciting! You know, if Lyndon Ashmore wants to be taken seriously, why does his website look as if it's designed by someone with mental problems? But hey, let's look at what he claims:

the mental problem of having a good sense of humour. how crazy is that ? :crazy:

I'm sorry, but that's retarded. If the speed of light depended on frequency, then supernovae would first appear blue and then gradually change their colour to red as the "slower long-wavelength" photons arrive. Of course, that doesn't happen: from the moment a supernova is observed, its entire spectrum is detected. The speed of light is constant, and it has been confirmed by countless experiments, ad nauseam.

Ok point me to where a supernova occurred and our equipment was so sensitive that we could eliminate no delay for any part of the spectrum before it arrived ?

Ah, yes of course. The "scientists follow the mainstream because of grants" canard. The favourite fallacy of every pseudoscience fan.
Several colleagues of mine have done research on Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND); one of them even published in Nature about MOND. If your conspiracy theory were true, then how would this be possible? After all, MOND certainly isn't mainstream.
Look, every new scientific theory has to satisfy at minimum these requirements:
[*]It has to be mathematically consistent.
[*]It has to be consistent with every known relevant observation and experiment.
[*]It should be testable (at least in principle), and predict where it will deviate from other existing theories.

it cant be consistent with every known observation. what researcher can take on that much work. they can propose that the old body of work is flawed and then say, because this and that reason.

As for grants, we should post up a few articles published in nature recently regarding Postdoc unemployment and departments jobs, being grant lead. It does not apply to every field. of course. In physics and maths, computational sciences. Basically anything an individual with time can contribute to without having to play ball to large interests.

The real question is: why are you so attracted by anything that goes against mainstream science? Why do you mistrust the scientific community? On what basis do you question today's standard models? And on what basis do you think that people like Annila or Ashmore are correct?

not by anything. about 90% of the work i have in my database is mainstream and i reject many non mainstream models. More than i do accepted models. I like the non mainstream theories that provide elegant solutions to previously bloated over complicated models. big bangs, dark matter, string theory, gravity particles, hodge bodge standard models, all done away with by altering one line of an equation used in relativity. Now thats interesting occams razor.

You must be aware that when humans goal direct their efforts even into completely ridiculous ideas they build a wall which is hard for an individual even with the right ideas to break. As humans our brains are not only wired to be interested to what the main crowd is doing, they are wired to fight and compete to be part of that. One essential mechanism for that goal is to publicly display to the the crowds you are worthy by beating down anything or anybody which does not fit in.

See this ?


If i had one of these for everybody who argued with me vehemently on an internet forum for something in that groups interest then in PM admitted something else i would be...

well you know. :shhh: