I know our friend @Native has been enthusiastic for electric theories of the universe in the past, but I'm interested to know what he has in mind on this occasion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Any Maverick Mathematicians out there?
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
JoshuaTree
Flowers are red?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No, I mean in astrophysics and cosmology specifically.
Yes I have a *Pet Dog* who obey the name, Logic
As said in my OP it´s to find persons who´re able to think out of the standing consensus boxes - really no matter which boxes, but especially the cosmological and astrophysical boxes.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
They have only "failed" because the EU is judged by the consensus *1/4 part gravitation ideas*. A methodology which obvious is highly inconsistent.
Agreed indeed.
And they - the *ThunderboltsProject* also have strange astronomical ideas of planets which once should be placed closely to Earth, *hovering in a line over the Earth´s northern celestial pole*. All nonsense which is based on stupid interpretations of ancient myths - which otherwise contains genuine knowledge of the creation.
Last edited:
epronovost
Well-Known Member
They have failed in their predictions, its core hypothesis have been found false or have been unfalsifiable so far.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
According to my OP an Electric Universe apporach could be one good reason to looking for Maverick Mathematicians.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You´re obviously disqualified regarding my OP so just leave the thread - or think twice.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Perhaps they should be given a taste of what is actually on offer before they engage? I would think that only fair. As it stands, descriptions of this proposed "secret forum panel" of "maverick mathematicians" has been sparse. I think the OP should probably give a taste of what he/she is able to bring to the table first before expecting anyone to want to devote time to whatever this endeavor is about. I, for one, view my time as precious... and it often takes a bit of convincing that something is going to be worth that time before I am willing to spend it. And why shouldn't I want to be convinced? Talking me out of that is going to take... well... some convincing. Haha...
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Fair enough - but when mentioning *Maverick* i thougth it would be obvious that the OP referred to *the guts and the intellectual and logical skills to think outside the squared box of the consensus society*.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
And then, won't the Goliath be there challenging our RF Mathematicians continuously at the pitch of his voice? Right, please?
Regards
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Algebraically your step 2 does not follow from step 1. And then of course you made a divide by zero error.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I couldda been a contender but never made it past calculus 101.
The thing is though I'm not sure there's such a thing as "maverick" math. Oh sure, back in my salad days I could devise an infinite number of ways to solve almost any question but all math is still just quantified logic, at least so far as I know. You can apply it in many different ways but once it's not logical, it's not math. It is obvious that cosmology is a mess right now and requires no more actual math than saying there is exactly a 0% chance that there are an infinite number of universes. There is a 0% chance that all the world's a holographic stage upon which we strut.
Of course discovering the actual nature of reality is going to prove pretty tricky or it would have happened right after the theory of relativity. Perhaps it will prove as simple as reducing what all the constants have in common or the actual nature of time or space. There are countless possibilities but what we need is something to which to apply the logic of math and an experiment to prove it rather some novel math or novel way of looking at modern experiment and knowledge. This problem will prove to go all the way back to metaphysics and definitions. It's not so much out of the box thinking that's needed so much as an entirely new box.
Incidentally I believe this new box will not need to be so constraining as the existing one and that computers might be able to manipulate its far more ephemeral parameters.
The thing is though I'm not sure there's such a thing as "maverick" math. Oh sure, back in my salad days I could devise an infinite number of ways to solve almost any question but all math is still just quantified logic, at least so far as I know. You can apply it in many different ways but once it's not logical, it's not math. It is obvious that cosmology is a mess right now and requires no more actual math than saying there is exactly a 0% chance that there are an infinite number of universes. There is a 0% chance that all the world's a holographic stage upon which we strut.
Of course discovering the actual nature of reality is going to prove pretty tricky or it would have happened right after the theory of relativity. Perhaps it will prove as simple as reducing what all the constants have in common or the actual nature of time or space. There are countless possibilities but what we need is something to which to apply the logic of math and an experiment to prove it rather some novel math or novel way of looking at modern experiment and knowledge. This problem will prove to go all the way back to metaphysics and definitions. It's not so much out of the box thinking that's needed so much as an entirely new box.
Incidentally I believe this new box will not need to be so constraining as the existing one and that computers might be able to manipulate its far more ephemeral parameters.
Well, ah . . . because it is not a meaningful challenge. Also, as far as I know there are not any "great" resident mathematicians posting here.
Math is pretty standard world wide in academics without controversy. The foundation of our astrophysics and cosmology by the present scientific evidence and knowledge is 'Quantum Mechanics.' If anyone is looking for 'Mavericks' it is from the science perspective of astrophysics and cosmology. I brought up Emanuel Velikovsky, because he is indeed a 'maverick' in terms of science. There are other possible candidates for sure.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
That, sort of, should qualify as a Maverick Mathematician
Any rutine in the astrophysical and cosmological departments too?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Of course not. The Maverick part regards *thinking differently of the same things*.
Not at all. It´s just a question of getting rid of 350 year old occult scientific consensus thoughts and start all over with more relevant approaches.
That, sort of, should qualify as a Maverick Mathematician
You failed to notice the math was fundamentally flawed.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Still flawed.More convincing if you're more general:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
OK, thank you.
While we eagerly wait for some wrestler to accept the challenge of the OP and goes inside the ring/box for the bout, I would like to go off-Math and have one's considered opinion, if one likes to give, about the latest research of DNA of the warrior Aryans who entered the Indian sub-continent riding the rattling/shining steel Chariots to subjugate and or to push the indigenous agricultural inhabitants of the Ghandhara/Harappan/Mohenjo-daro/Dravidian civilizations to the South and turned them into minion untouchables dalits and shudras. Perhaps Krishna also belonged to these people as his color was black and not like the white Aryans:
Two new genetic studies upheld Indo-Aryan migration. So why did Indian media report the opposite?
Right friend, please?
Regards