Suppressed Scientific Research in Mathematical Physics and Quantum Gravity

FOLLOW UP: www.abovetopsecret.com...



I have been working on a research program with astonishing successes for about a decade. I recently completed a book that proves, in my opinion, that there is a conspiracy against me and my result. The result is undeniable, but it is as if the psychologists and sociologists have taken away the keys from the mathematicians in the government who now cannot even get in the door. Why is this result not given attention? It was disallowed from arXiv in 2009 and 2011, and it is as if the URL from which the PDF will be downloaded --- viXra not arXiv --- is more important to the "scientific establishment" that the actual discoveries that are described in the this book which reviews highlights from across 20 previous academic papers, all of high quality, that I uploaded to viXra as regular workunits of my ongoing research. This research is banned. It is a huge conspiracy to deny me any accolades because it will disprove people in the government who think that between they and I, I am the idiot.

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model

PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF MY ABSOLUTE DISPROOF OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
The Truth About Evolution

a reply to: sevensixtwo

Thats the problem we encounter when bumping up against scientific convention. Just because its widely accepted doesn't mean its the truth.

If you attack Darwin you will be ostracized. But you already know that.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

Your brain has too many non-deterministic state transitions.

RE: "Why is this result not given attention? "

Because what you write in those links makes you look like an insane person.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

What was it that you discovered that warrants a conspiracy against you?
And do you know who is behind it?

This is the first time I ever heard about any of this so forgive my ignorance.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: sevensixtwo

Thats the problem we encounter when bumping up against scientific convention. Just because its widely accepted doesn't mean its the truth.

If you attack Darwin you will be ostracized. But you already know that.

I agree, but, his criticism that the mechanism making changes is operating too slowly for man to evolve, therefore, proves Darwin's theory of evolution is just wrong and really bad scientific thinking. There could be other mechanisms involved that have yet to be discovered. But declaring proof without any other consideration seems like a bias. Anyone who studies evolution quickly realizes there's a progression of complexity with life forms. Darwin's theory is pretty much science fact even though you don't have definitive proof for each evolutionary step. It's not necessary because there's so much collaborating evidence supporting the theory.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
Darwin's theory is pretty much science fact even though you don't have definitive proof for each evolutionary step. It's not necessary because there's so much collaborating evidence with the theory.

Although I agree that the OP's point is very weak, I disagree strongly with your comment quoted above.

Science fact requires definitive proof, and it is necessary to settle the debate once and for all. What you have is a lot of conjecture and assumption (from all sides of the argument) which makes it a complete unknown.

No one knows with certainty the truth about the origin of species yet, we are all merely guessing at best.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I agree. He didn't even know about genome and DNA. Thats like the church asserting what is the truth about the cosmos before telescopes.

Science medicine and history were sheer quackery back then.

They still are in certain regards.

a reply to: sevensixtwo

Keep writing and posting your papers. The only way to really learn anything is to write about. After 10 or 20 years you may say something really meaningful.

Anyone can say anything and claim it's genius. The trick to being a great intellectual is convincing other people you've says something really meaningful and important.

One of my professors used to say, "It's better to say nothing because people will just think you are a fool. But if you say anything, it will prove it."

a reply to: muzzleflash

I discovered a simultaneous mechanism of quantum gravity and grand unification. This is the problem Einstein worked on for the rest of his life after discovering relativity and solving the photoelectric effect.

I think the conspiracy must be my close family members who have been stealing from me as the proper man of the family. They really need everyone to believe I am stupid and/or crazy.

www.2occatl.net...


ALSO WHAT DOES MY SANITY HAVE TO DO WITH MY RESULT? I AM COMPLETELY SANE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MY RESULT IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON MY SANITY IN ANY FASHION.

I am no expert but I do believe based on the time clock that Darwin's theory is both impractical and nia impossible. Therefore, there must be another explanation that maps to evolution! Some how, some time, something generated a leap in evolution! And the only thing that makes sense is a tweaking of gene's/DNA. Just my opinion.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: sevensixtwo

The trick to being a great intellectual is convincing other people you've says something really meaningful and important.

One of my professors used to say, "It's better to say nothing because people will just think you are a fool. But if you say anything, it will prove it."

The trick to being intellectual is by figuring things out, and convincing others of something is being a good communicator. You can be one or the either, or both, or neither.

The old cliche about proving you're a fool is absurd, not only does it wrongly attempt to convince people to stop speaking their mind but it was also spoken by a fool.

originally posted by: sevensixtwo
FOLLOW UP: www.abovetopsecret.com...



I have been working on a research program with astonishing successes for about a decade. I recently completed a book that proves, in my opinion, that there is a conspiracy against me and my result. The result is undeniable, but it is as if the psychologists and sociologists have taken away the keys from the mathematicians in the government who now cannot even get in the door. Why is this result not given attention? It was disallowed from arXiv in 2009 and 2011, and it is as if the URL from which the PDF will be downloaded --- viXra not arXiv --- is more important to the "scientific establishment" that the actual discoveries that are described in the this book which reviews highlights from across 20 previous academic papers, all of high quality, that I uploaded to viXra as regular workunits of my ongoing research. This research is banned. It is a huge conspiracy to deny me any accolades because it will disprove people in the government who think that between they and I, I am the idiot.

The General Relevance of the Modified Cosmological Model

PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF MY ABSOLUTE DISPROOF OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTION
The Truth About Evolution

I will read, the bits I can understand anyway.

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
I am no expert but I do believe based on the time clock that Darwin's theory is both impractical and nia impossible. Therefore, there must be another explanation that maps to evolution! Some how, some time, something generated a leap in evolution! And the only thing that makes sense is a tweaking of gene's/DNA. Just my opinion.

Your investigation is already flawed...



but beware because....

Are there people who can understand this? If it is too ground breaking it will be ignored because it will ruffle "royal" feathers.

And is a flat universe the same as a flat earth, just bigger?

(TOIC) that spells out all of the trivially derived properties. To that end, consider a cube spanned by ˆ x , ˆ y , and ˆ z . The slices of constant z are the subspaces spanned by ˆ x and ˆ y at each value of z . Every curve that can be constructed using ˆ x and ˆ y will be confined to some slice of z . Any curve leaving the slice would have a component in the ˆ z direction. Likewise any curve constructed from just ˆ x and ˆ y will have its tangent vectors confined to that single slice of constant z . The curve’s cotangent space is the first place we could possibly come across vectors with a non-vanishing ˆ z component. We state these obvious truths because the MCM describes de Sitter (dS) and Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetimes as slices of a 5D cube and we want to show the exceptional behavior of our flat universe when it sews together two 5D spaces but is not itself a slice of any 5D space.

a reply to: sevensixtwovixra.org...



.

that there is a conspiracy against me and my result

stopped reading right here
go bring your big ego elsewhere

a reply to: sevensixtwo

I am trying to read your paper/book and am finding that there are terms that are (to me) either nonsense, or use a symbology that I am unaware of. This may also be because you have only partially stated something that seems obvious to you, but since readers are being introduced to 'new ground', you should probably state things from first principles and fully.

I confess that I use mathematics to confirm theory, and do not usually intuit theory directly from mathematics. As such, it isn't my go-to 'thoughtspace', but I am aware of many who have that capability. So be lenient if I have gotten it wrong.

Perhaps, instead of trying to introduce a monolithic theory, one could do it in parts, proposing individual paradigms and then rigorously defending each, without reference to other unreviewed theory.

Then, from first principles, you could build a more comprehensible framework.

Also, the structure of your paper diverges from the usual academic paper. Normally such a paper would begin with an abstract which is a summary of the findings of the paper (not a fore-word). Then, you would have a comprehensive section on the aims and objectives of the paper (without drawing conclusions), then a methodology section, then a results section. Finally, you would have a conclusion which states how the aims were met and supports the abstract from the results. In this conclusion, one could suggest other avenues of study arising from the results, errata & etc.

The other thing is that this particular paper was only published a few days ago, at Christmas time, when most peer reviewers would not be working. Give it a little time.

Please don't take my comments as being negative. If you have made such breakthrough, its presentation to others is very important.

originally posted by: sevensixtwo
I have been working on a research program with astonishing successes for about a decade. I recently completed a book that proves, in my opinion, that there is a conspiracy against me and my result.

If you create your own concepts and definitions, you will always be 100% correct.

Success is inevitable. Because you're the creator, the judge, and the jury, of your theory.

But for other people to accept what you have to say, you need to write your "scientific paper" to include 3 critical things;


1) 1/3-rd of the paper should be devoted to introducing and explaining the "concepts" used in the work.

2) 1/3-rd of the paper should consist of "mathematical expressions" that make those concepts precise enough that they can be subject to "testing."

3) 1/3-rd of the paper should describe the experiments to be done, or have been done, that "can or have" verify[d] the consequences of those precise mathematical expressions, so that anyone can "check" the validity of what you have to say, with reference to physical observables.

Too many of these "brilliant" alternative theory type papers leave out one or more of these 3 parts, so that while the paper may sound intelligent to the reader, it is rendered no more than sophistical babble owing to the lack of the other requirements to make it "scientific."

Remember, science is about things that can be measured, and is about measurements.

If you haven't explained how to measure something in your work, it's not science, it's philosophy, or science fiction.

So you don’t like it when your scientific studies are peer-reviewed, I take it? The link you gave to your study of evolution specifically stated that the studies on its site are not peer-reviewed.

So I am reading your paper, and am I correct to assume you believe in evolution, but think that there is a process that speeds it along? Almost like the genes or something are thinking about ways to genetically engineer offspring to adapt to situations instead of relying on random chance?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I agree, but, his criticism that the mechanism making changes is operating too slowly for man to evolve, therefore, proves Darwin's theory of evolution is just wrong and really bad scientific thinking. There could be other mechanisms involved that have yet to be discovered. But declaring proof without any other consideration seems like a bias. Anyone who studies evolution quickly realizes there's a progression of complexity with life forms. Darwin's theory is pretty much science fact even though you don't have definitive proof for each evolutionary step. It's not necessary because there's so much collaborating evidence supporting the theory.

You only need to look at a fetus in a womb, to see the "evolution" with your own eyes.

That the mechanics are slow ... well, since we're on the topic. After all, it's several thousand years old ... not like it's "brand new". You're a grain of sand, and you're saying that because you can't measure yourself move ... sandstorms don't exist. In more "philosophical" point, time is a line several miles long ... and you're trying to measure it's inclination based on a single point, or putting it simply ... you don't even have a 2D model to reference in.

Putting it in plain simple english. The woman is born with her eggstocks, the male produces his sperms regularly thoughout his life ... like a bacteria, the sperm can get hit by cosmic rays and genetic mutation occurr.

So, next time someone asks ... which came first, the chicken or the egg ... answer "the rooster did".

*burp* ... sorry, it's the beer.