Posted: May 14, 2015 4:42 am
by dcphysicsstudent
Pulsar wrote:
Brain man wrote:Annila published the incomplete conjecture on reimman because at that time there were about 4 new attempts being published so everybody was forcing each other to put their maths on the table in whatever state it was, OK.

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?

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?

Brain man wrote:Do you know what this is ?

No this is not tired light. Unlike the wikipedia article there has been work an improvements on it published since 2001 that improve the calculations.

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:

Different frequencies of radiation are known to travel through space at different speeds [2] as is shown by gamma ray bursts. All frequencies may well start off at the same time but they will arrive here on Earth at different times - and the greater the redshift, the greater the pulse broadening! Who needs expansion and relativity - 'New Tired Light'.

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.
About that horrible GRB press release that he mentions: he should look at what the authors say in the actual paper ( "we argue that gradual electron acceleration in the emitting plasma can provide a natural explanation of the observed time structures". For more info, see their ยง5.2. No 'we have disproved relativity!' claims...

Brain man wrote:Do you know what this is ?

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.
In my opinion, Annila fails at the second requirement. I don't think he has much knowledge of relativity and cosmology. Now, somehow he managed to pass peer review. Well, good for him. But I predict that his paper will be completely ignored by the scientific community. Peer review alone doesn't determine the strength of a paper; its true (lack of) substance will become apparent in the long run.

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?

My ex-Physics Teacher is not retarded thanks very much