by gill1109 » Thu Nov 05, 2020 3:48 am
FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.
I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of
Communications in Algebra, Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of
Annals of Physics, Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe
me about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_P ... athematics.
Bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism are universal. It is as common in Bell-deniers as in Bell-disciples. People cling to cherished beliefs. Then of course, power corrupts, politics is about power. Dr Joy Christian lacks qualifications in many parts of mathematics. So do I. It is easy to blame the people at the top. However, if you claim to have disproved the Hurwitz theorem you should be able to show where the standard proofs go wrong. On retraction watch, your arguments have been carefully dissected and analysed by ordinary (not powerful, not influential) mathematicians. It’s reassuring for me that they saw exactly the same mistakes which I noticed two years ago.
I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?
Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.
.
Yes Fred, you are mistaken too. You are a Joy Christian-disciple. Your belief is impervious to reason. You drew a cosine curve by a Monte Carlo simulation on one computer. The cosine function is built into GAViewer, it is easy to get it out again! Remember, it was Albert Jan Wonninck who implemented Joy’s math faithfully in computer code, and got the wrong answer. Then he discovered a trick, transposing the multiplication depending on the sign of lambda. You adopted that. The original model was a fake, it did not work, and it needed someone else to add an extra faked line of code so that at last it drew that cosine. The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Very interesting how the hoax is starting to have some success. So far it seems that just one powerful journal editor got taken in.
[quote="FrediFizzx"][quote="gill1109"][quote="Joy Christian"][quote="gill1109"]
It's a good thing that pure mathematicians are more serious. Papers in pure maths can generally be trusted. Half of the papers in most other fields of science are wrong, and more than half are of no interest at all, they just serve academic career making.[/quote]
I have found that some pure mathematicians are just as stupid, unreliable, biased, and political as some physicists are. Take, for example, your friend John C. Baez. He is just as biased, closed-minded, and dogmatic as any Bell-believer I know. In his case about the so-called Hurwitz's theorem, which, like any theorem, is based on a number of restrictive assumptions. But Baez thinks of it as if it were a god-given gospel. And the Editor-in-Cheif of [i]Communications in Algebra[/i], Scott Chapman, turned out to be as spineless and dishonest as the Editor-in-Chief of [i]Annals of Physics[/i], Brian Greene, had been. Both of them fell for a bogus claim by a statistician like you who has no qualifications to judge my work based on algebra and general relativity. So, please, stop bragging about mathematicians. They are just as politically and sociologically driven as any other scientist. And you don't have to believe [i]me[/i] about the low ethical and scientific standards of mathematicians. Just ask Grigori Perelman about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman#Possible_withdrawal_from_mathematics.
[/quote]
Bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism are universal. It is as common in Bell-deniers as in Bell-disciples. People cling to cherished beliefs. Then of course, power corrupts, politics is about power. Dr Joy Christian lacks qualifications in many parts of mathematics. So do I. It is easy to blame the people at the top. However, if you claim to have disproved the Hurwitz theorem you should be able to show where the standard proofs go wrong. On retraction watch, your arguments have been carefully dissected and analysed by ordinary (not powerful, not influential) mathematicians. It’s reassuring for me that they saw exactly the same mistakes which I noticed two years ago.
I understand your feelings, but did it ever occur to you that you could be mistaken?[/quote]
Nope. Because then I would be mistaken also. Joy's math is flawless. I've validated it via computer.
.[/quote]
Yes Fred, you are mistaken too. You are a Joy Christian-disciple. Your belief is impervious to reason. You drew a cosine curve by a Monte Carlo simulation on one computer. The cosine function is built into GAViewer, it is easy to get it out again! Remember, it was Albert Jan Wonninck who implemented Joy’s math faithfully in computer code, and got the wrong answer. Then he discovered a trick, transposing the multiplication depending on the sign of lambda. You adopted that. The original model was a fake, it did not work, and it needed someone else to add an extra faked line of code so that at last it drew that cosine. The whole thing is an elaborate hoax. Very interesting how the hoax is starting to have some success. So far it seems that just one powerful journal editor got taken in.