On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:45:38 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 11 May 2014 14:12, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Sunday, May 11, 2014 2:23:23 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote: > > On 11 May 2014 12:13, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 11 May 2014, at 6:00 am, "John Ross" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I suggest you get a copy of my book and see if you can answer these > question without having to rely on neutrinos. My offer to send you a copy > still stands. > > Why do you keep saying this? The more you say it, the more it sounds like > a blatant self-marketing exercise, the offer of the free copy sounding like > sheer desperation. You are treating this list as a peer-review forum, just > as you did when you appeared here several years back when you were first > touting this thesis.Your ideas need to be in shape before you publish, not > after. To insist that everyone digest an entire book whose main concepts > cannot be persuasively presented in short form by its author is merely > rubbing noses the wrong way. You should provide the necessary details > (extracted from your book if necessary) but tailored to the precise focus > of the questions now being put to you. None of the questions now being put > to you occured to you while writing your book. That is why people are > reticent to read it. You may have spent 13 or more years thinking about > this but there is nothing to prevent someone spending 13 years barking up > the wrong tree. If you had systemic errors or failed to take certain > fundamentals into account at the start such as the all-important lepton > issue then you have spent that entire time finding what you seek and your > book would then be nothing more than a splendiferous exercise in > confirmation bias. > > > Newton spent half his life on alchemy > > > That's because chemistry was still at the alchemy stage in his day. > > > And trying to find hidden meaning in the Bible. And arguing with Leibniz > and Hooke (or whoever it was). And being nasty to people... > Well, there's more than a reasonable case that Newton saw Leibniz's invention of calculus, and immediately felt like he was just prbout to say something just like that, and fired off a paper saying as much claiming it was independent. It was plagiarism. Sure, he needed it, who doesn't. But the sane whole thing being discovered independently in two places isn't plausible. Newton's notation looks like a rush job, F and F' and so on. On the other hand Leibniz' is beautiful, and makes sense...can be reversed for integration,,...for deriving an expression for a 3D object, and so on. Yeah Newton plagiarised it. Totally unforgivable and disgusting. Hooke was one of the great geniuses....the great pioneers. He invented the microscope amongst other things, and opened the world's eyes to the microscopic details. Created sketchbooks of amazing creatures of the microscopic world. He was a fantastic artist. He and Newton were rivals then, and they didn't along. Which one of them was the arsehole? Newton was paranoid.....he loathed criticism...he'd been on his own for 22 years other than Halley (who kicked Newton off by showing up wanting to talk about the comet that vanishes behind the sun, and the second comet that shows up the other side coming back the other way, and whether they could be the same one) Newton wrote his theory in dense largely unreadable - in any normal sense - vocabularly precisely because he didn't want anyone understanding everything that they would think they were in a position to criticize. But by and large, apart from the calculus, there's just no doubt that, as you say, he was one of the greatest ever. I think the greatest ever. The bible reference as offish....you might think so but it isn't true. All the pioneers of science were deeply religious. The were protestants....Calvinism had no problem with discovering what went around what in the sky. They spoke straight to God, not to any pope, so whether it was a problem, blasphemy, the bible literal...all of this was between each man private with God. So there was no conflict, and Christians created science, they went around the world cataloguing everything, weighed the earth, puzzled over geological featuers, discovered the fossils and saw the patterns. They did it all, and right up to the mid 19th century God's created was openly talked about and it was believed. So for that reason, Newton obsessing about the bible reflected the science of his day. t So there it is. You also mentioned Einstein. There's much huger - in fact across the board - compelling evidence that he plagiarized all the really hard parts from people like Poincare and Hilbert. I mean it's ridiculous how the same issues come up across both theories, and ultimely, for both theories, what it comes down it, is the theory is effectively published earlier by someone else, and Einstein claims he did not read that theory, instead Immediately after came up with the same thing independently. A situation like that regarding what is called the greatest genus is farcical. His friends later admitte dahey pored over the Poincare paper for days and days. i Hilbert published the complete solution for the field equations days before Einstein. The official Nobel Prize site says as much, with more than the hint this is why Einstein did not receive a Nobel for either of those theories. But..he's still one of the great geniuses in science for his paper about the photoelectric effect, which he did receive a nobel for. Mucky business science.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
