| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2006 12:52:20 AM |
| Object: |
HERESY IN SCIENCE |
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
whole, science is dying:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 03:58:39 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1156657940.437710.300060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
whole, science is dying:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
hehe... another fine example of Pentcho Valev and his
HEARSAY in ANTI-SCIENCE ;-)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 06:53:29 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:39dIg.43600$ly.605319@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156657940.437710.300060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
| > "In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
| > Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
| > there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
| > all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
| > Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
| >
| > In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
| > anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
| > theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
| > relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
| > whole, science is dying:
| >
| > http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
| >
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
| > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
| > http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
| > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
| >
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
|
| hehe... another fine example of Pentcho Valev and his
| HEARSAY in ANTI-SCIENCE ;-)
|
| Dirk Vdm
|
Hahaha.. Another fine example of the local village idiot Dork Van de merde's
total
ignorance of science and mathematics. :-)
Have a reprise:
I like the part about a BIG multinational IT manufacturer/service &
solution provider in Belgium with 500 employees.
It makes IBM and Microsoft look quite small, doesn't it?
The logic of Dork:
"I don't work for BMC" -- Dork
HAHAHAHA!
1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started
with the beginning of your message "Dear Pentcho,"?
3) An introduction to the ***** you produce later on?
4) ***** that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The '*****' in question 4 is a reprise of the '*****' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Belgium?
How old are you?
HAHAHA!!!!
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 06:58:57 AM |
|
|
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:ZIfIg.177854$F8.88523@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:39dIg.43600$ly.605319@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156657940.437710.300060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
| > "In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
| > Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
| > there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
| > all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
| > Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
| >
| > In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
| > anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
| > theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
| > relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
| > whole, science is dying:
| >
| > http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
| >
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
| > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
| > http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
| > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
| >
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
|
| hehe... another fine example of Pentcho Valev and his
| HEARSAY in ANTI-SCIENCE ;-)
|
| Dirk Vdm
|
Hahaha.. Another fine example of the local village idiot Dork Van de merde's
total
ignorance of science and mathematics. :-)
Have a reprise:
I like the part about a BIG multinational IT manufacturer/service &
solution provider in Belgium with 500 employees.
hm, I think we have 1500 now - in Belgium alone.
It makes IBM and Microsoft look quite small, doesn't it?
I don't know their head count in Belgium.
The logic of Dork:
"I don't work for BMC" -- Dork
Indeed I don't.
Congratulations. That's the first one you've got right.
HAHAHAHA!
That one sounds right as well.
Have another reprise.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 07:58:15 AM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:5OfIg.43905$0B3.559116@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
|
| "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:ZIfIg.177854$F8.88523@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
| > in message news:39dIg.43600$ly.605319@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
| > |
| > | "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1156657940.437710.300060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
| > | > "In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that
the
| > | > Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue
that
| > | > there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant
for
| > | > all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
| > | > Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
| > | >
| > | > In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
| > | > anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
| > | > theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
| > | > relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
| > | > whole, science is dying:
| > | >
| > | > http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
| > | >
| >
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
| > | >
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
| > | >
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
| > | > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
| > | > http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
| > | > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
| > | >
| >
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
| > |
| > | hehe... another fine example of Pentcho Valev and his
| > | HEARSAY in ANTI-SCIENCE ;-)
| > |
| > | Dirk Vdm
| > |
| > Hahaha.. Another fine example of the local village idiot Dork Van de
merde's
| > total
| > ignorance of science and mathematics. :-)
| >
| > Have a reprise:
[anip]
Have another reprise:
1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started?
3) An introduction to the ***** you produce later on?
4) ***** that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The '*****' in question 4 is a reprise of the '*****' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Belgium?
How old are you?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 12:00:07 PM |
|
|
In sci.logic, Pentcho Valev
<pvalev@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 26 Aug 2006 22:52:20 -0700
<1156657940.437710.300060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
whole, science is dying:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
News: "PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE?" [2006-08-11]
Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson bemoan the
loss of entrants into A-level physics.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
"A farewell to physics"? [2006-08-11]
Another article along similar lines.
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
"Physics in America at Crossroads and in Crisis, Panel Says"
[2006-04-27]
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
"Perception that physics is too hard is causing UK decline" [2006-08-14]
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
"Physics in crisis? The failing number of physicists in England and
Wals needs to be addressed." [2005-11-30]
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
"A crisis in Fundamental Physics:
with an infinity of universes proposed and more than 10^400 theories, is
experimental proof of physics laws still feasible?" [2006-01/2006-02]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
"Chemistry caught in crisis catalysed by student apathy" [2002-04-25]
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
"Plummeting student numbers jeopardise chemistry" [2006-08-16]
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Pentcho Valev
None of these appear relevant to Einstein but it is quite
possible (though unlikely) that prospective entrants are
turned off because the Physics Establishment(tm) reveres
Einstein as a hero instead of, say, a fradulent patent
clerk who got lucky.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 01:03:35 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:u6t8s3-8eq.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.logic, Pentcho Valev
| <pvalev@yahoo.com>
| wrote
| on 26 Aug 2006 22:52:20 -0700
| <1156657940.437710.300060@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
| > http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
| > "In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
| > Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
| > there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
| > all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
| > Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
| >
| > In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
| > anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
| > theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
| > relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
| > whole, science is dying:
| >
| > http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
|
| News: "PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE?" [2006-08-11]
| Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson bemoan the
| loss of entrants into A-level physics.
|
| >
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
|
| "A farewell to physics"? [2006-08-11]
| Another article along similar lines.
|
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
|
| "Physics in America at Crossroads and in Crisis, Panel Says"
| [2006-04-27]
|
| >
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
|
| "Perception that physics is too hard is causing UK decline" [2006-08-14]
|
| > http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
|
| "Physics in crisis? The failing number of physicists in England and
| Wals needs to be addressed." [2005-11-30]
|
| > http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
|
| "A crisis in Fundamental Physics:
| with an infinity of universes proposed and more than 10^400 theories, is
| experimental proof of physics laws still feasible?" [2006-01/2006-02]
|
| > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
|
| "Chemistry caught in crisis catalysed by student apathy" [2002-04-25]
|
| >
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
|
| "Plummeting student numbers jeopardise chemistry" [2006-08-16]
|
| >
| > Sic transit gloria mundi.
| >
| > Pentcho Valev
| >
|
| None of these appear relevant to Einstein but it is quite
| possible (though unlikely) that prospective entrants are
| turned off because the Physics Establishment(tm) reveres
| Einstein as a hero instead of, say, a fradulent patent
| clerk who got lucky.
Yep. We disagree on "though unlikely".
Rather like finding life on a planet somewhere, it's "unlikely"
but already happened, *****.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "klxto" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
27 Aug 2006 02:22:58 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
whole, science is dying:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Pentcho Valev
I do believe, science is not dying, is transforming, and is just call
evolution.
The corner stone in Galileo's time has changed, now is time to change
what Prof. Albert Einstein say, but the same question remind? What is
the power supply?
Nemovir en qui mundum non reddar meliorem.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
28 Aug 2006 01:33:40 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the
Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that
there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for
all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by
Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
C-B
In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy
anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine
theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained
relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a
whole, science is dying:
http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "MoeBlee" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
28 Aug 2006 01:47:39 PM |
|
|
Charlie-Boo wrote:
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
You're a loon.
MoeBlee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
28 Aug 2006 02:02:09 PM |
|
|
MoeBlee wrote:
Charlie-Boo wrote:
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
You're a loon.
Unsubstantiated.
MoeBlee
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barb Knox" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
28 Aug 2006 05:20:16 PM |
|
|
In article <1156791729.645032.63640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@gmail.com> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Charlie-Boo wrote:
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
You're a loon.
Unsubstantiated.
Indeed. There is no evidence that you hear voices, think you're Adam,
or believe that your work has failed to penetrate the establishment
because of a vast conspiracy centred around you personally.
However, there is ample evidence that you are a crank. For example, see
<http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html>,
"Tuning Up Your Crank Filters". Here's part of it:
=====
Next, look for some kind of summary or abstract that presents the basic
ideas. If this is absent, you can move on. Again, if the author cannot
go to the trouble of providing this, he has no right to expect you to
take your valuable time to dig deeper.
The abstract should give you sufficient reason to read further. If it
does not, then don't bother. Here are some of the things to look out
for in the abstract: claims of persecution or conspiracies; claims of
logical errors in long-established theories; claims of great,
revolutionary implications; claims of something for nothing. These are
all possible, but very unlikely. Decide whether it is worth your time
to probe deeper.
=====
MoeBlee
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Srinivasan" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
29 Aug 2006 02:05:12 AM |
|
|
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <1156791729.645032.63640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@gmail.com> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Charlie-Boo wrote:
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
You're a loon.
Unsubstantiated.
Indeed. There is no evidence that you hear voices, think you're Adam,
or believe that your work has failed to penetrate the establishment
because of a vast conspiracy centred around you personally.
However, there is ample evidence that you are a crank. For example, see
<http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html>,
"Tuning Up Your Crank Filters". Here's part of it:
=====
Next, look for some kind of summary or abstract that presents the basic
ideas. If this is absent, you can move on. Again, if the author cannot
go to the trouble of providing this, he has no right to expect you to
take your valuable time to dig deeper.
The abstract should give you sufficient reason to read further. If it
does not, then don't bother. Here are some of the things to look out
for in the abstract: claims of persecution or conspiracies; claims of
logical errors in long-established theories; claims of great,
revolutionary implications; claims of something for nothing. These are
all possible, but very unlikely. Decide whether it is worth your time
to probe deeper.
From the above summary, I have decided, following the advice given
there, that it is not worth my time to read the full article on the
website given above.
Is it possible for an entire community of researchers to be dishonest
and self-serving and ignore legitimate dissent? Yes. Sad, but true.
Probably was always true, but is much more potently true in modern
times. Ironic, though -- you would have thought that with fantastic
communication facilities available in the last 10-20 years via
internet, it would be almost impossible to suppress legitimate dissent
by collective dishonest behaviour.
Tell me, where can I find an honest logician/philosopher/foundations
researcher who can look into my work (on a new logic NAFL -- see
<http://arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0506475>) and give a straightforward,
honest assessment? And honestly acknowledge *publicly* that my work
represents a legitimate dissenting opinion? I have been forced to stop
my research in logic/foundations/philosophy of science by my bosses at
IBM, but I don't blame them. They don't understand my work -- their
default assumption is that if my work was worth anything it would have
gotten some sort of response from the academic community. I know
better, but I failed to convince my bosses.
Regards, RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Srinivasan" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
29 Aug 2006 02:10:11 AM |
|
|
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <1156791729.645032.63640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@gmail.com> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Charlie-Boo wrote:
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
You're a loon.
Unsubstantiated.
Indeed. There is no evidence that you hear voices, think you're Adam,
or believe that your work has failed to penetrate the establishment
because of a vast conspiracy centred around you personally.
However, there is ample evidence that you are a crank. For example, see
<http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html>,
"Tuning Up Your Crank Filters". Here's part of it:
=====
Next, look for some kind of summary or abstract that presents the basic
ideas. If this is absent, you can move on. Again, if the author cannot
go to the trouble of providing this, he has no right to expect you to
take your valuable time to dig deeper.
The abstract should give you sufficient reason to read further. If it
does not, then don't bother. Here are some of the things to look out
for in the abstract: claims of persecution or conspiracies; claims of
logical errors in long-established theories; claims of great,
revolutionary implications; claims of something for nothing. These are
all possible, but very unlikely. Decide whether it is worth your time
to probe deeper.
This part in my previous post was truncated by Google, so I am
reposting it:
From the above summary, I have decided, following the advice given
there, that it is not worth my time to read the full article on the
website given above.
Regards, RS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charlie-Boo" |
|
| Title: Re: HERESY IN SCIENCE |
28 Aug 2006 09:01:34 PM |
|
|
Barb Knox wrote:
In article <1156791729.645032.63640@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Charlie-Boo" <shymathguy@gmail.com> wrote:
MoeBlee wrote:
Charlie-Boo wrote:
And in 2006 it is heresy to state that every computer science
publication that claims to have produced a Program Synthesis system or
an axiomatization of Theory of Computation or Incompleteness in Logic
is *****.
How long will it be before they realize that they are all liars and
that CBL solves all of these problems and a lot more? 100 years?
1000? The next iteration of earth?
You're a loon.
Unsubstantiated.
Indeed. There is no evidence that you hear voices, think you're Adam,
or believe that your work has failed to penetrate the establishment
because of a vast conspiracy centred around you personally.
Indeed, I have said the opposite every time someone gets into a
psychoanalysis of theories of Mathematics. That is just a special case
of judging a paper based on attributes of its author i.e. attacking the
messenger.
Every time I quote Einstein or some other noteable on the disdane for
new ideas exhibited by authority, I am reminded of its universality.
Every time I walk into a store and see signs with gramatrical errors, I
am reminded of the intelligent people who were ignored when they
pointed out these errors. Or when airlines landing late refuse to
announce gate connections while passengers wait precious minutes to be
let go and then hoard around their only immediate source of
information.
How many people here believe that most people in American society are
open to the idea of someone telling them there is a better way for them
to go about their business? And that most managers are pleased when
employees point out mistakes in the way things are being run?
However, there is ample evidence that you are a crank.
And abundant evidence that you attack the messenger.
For example, see
<http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Briefs/Cranks.html>,
"Tuning Up Your Crank Filters". Here's part of it:
=====
Next, look for some kind of summary or abstract that presents the basic
ideas. If this is absent, you can move on. Again, if the author cannot
go to the trouble of providing this, he has no right to expect you to
take your valuable time to dig deeper.
The abstract should give you sufficient reason to read further. If it
does not, then don't bother. Here are some of the things to look out
for in the abstract: claims of persecution or conspiracies;
"Never attribute to conspiracy what you can to stupidity."
A Boston Globe article quoted a number of prominent scientists who were
suddenly denied funding and respect when they presented ideas contrary
to conventional wisdom. Whether it be a small number of people with
great influence, or a common misbelief or common insecurity, it
happens.
claims of
logical errors in long-established theories;
What is wrong with correcting logical errors in long-established
theories? Godel showed that Hilbert's programme was logically
impossible. Wasn't that a good thing to do?
claims of great,
revolutionary implications;
Does Chaitin do that?
claims of something for nothing. These are
all possible, but very unlikely.
It's not the probability, it's the probability times the weight.
Decide whether it is worth your time
to probe deeper.
or to remain stubbornly stupid
C-B
=====
MoeBlee
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
