Any Maverick Mathematicians out there?

[ratiocinator]

Still flawed.

Wow, is it!?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Another subject for another thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow, is it!?

I believe the result of step four is 0 = 0. If a = b then a - b = 0

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe the result of step four is 0 = 0. If a = b then a - b = 0

I know exactly what's wrong with it; it's not meant to be taken seriously. Jeez, how many non-serious emojis do you need?

Oh, and it's step (line) three that first gives 0 = 0.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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*.

Well, as "obvious" as that may have seemed to you, I tentatively took it to mean people who don't necessarily play by

And then, won't the Goliath be there challenging our RF Mathematicians continuously at the pitch of his voice? Right, please?

Regards

The who? What in the hell are you going on about? Make some sense man. I dare you.

 

[Native]

You failed to notice the math was fundamentally flawed.

Is there ANY astrophysical and cosmological maths which ISN´T flawed?

 

[Native]

Well, as "obvious" as that may have seemed to you, I tentatively took it to mean people who don't necessarily play by

Thinking outside the box (also thinking out of the box or thinking beyond the box and, especially in Australia, thinking outside the square is a metaphor that means to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective. This phrase often refers to novel or creative thinking"

Then make your own descision whether you belongs inside or outside the *Maverick Mathematician* department.

 

[shunyadragon]

I know exactly what's wrong with it; it's not meant to be taken seriously. Jeez, how many non-serious emojis do you need?

Oh, and it's step (line) three that first gives 0 = 0.

OK, but I do not consider phony math a joke, but yes, I missed the sarcasm.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is there ANY astrophysical and cosmological maths which ISN´T flawed?

Yes, math as a whole is not flawed. In math flawed theorems do not meet the criteria of math proof. Your source discusses the problem of the application of math to General Relativity and the nature of black holes, and not a problem of math itself. A better understanding of the General Relativity and the problems and tentative nature of our current knowledge, and NOT an issue of math itself.

Interesting video, yes the application of math in science may be at times flawed, and evolves to correct errors, but I do not believe you remotely understand the lecture.

 

[Native]

Interesting video, yes the application of math in science may be at times flawed, and evolves to correct errors, but I do not believe you remotely understand the lecture.

You´re contradicting yourself here.

There is NOTHING to understand in this video where the maths evidently is flawed.

 

[shunyadragon]

You´re contradicting yourself here.

There is NOTHING to understand in this video where the maths evidently is flawed.

True, there is no indication in this video that math is flawed. It refers to the problems of the application of math in understanding General Relativity and 'Black Holes.'

 

[ratiocinator]

Is there ANY astrophysical and cosmological maths which ISN´T flawed?

Dipped into this and established the guy has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Schwarzschild metric, then looked him up and confirmed I was right: Stephen J. Crothers. He's a handyman, gardener, and (very) amateur 'scientist' who publishes nonsense on viXra and his own website, rather than face peer review.

It's very easy to bamboozle people if you know a bit about mathematics or mathematical science and your target audience knows nothing.

 

[Native]

True, there is no indication in this video that math is flawed.

What!?

but I do not believe you remotely understand the lecture.

Apparently you didn´t understand that THE ENTIRE video context dealt with flawed use of maths, hence there is NOTHING to understand at all. There is nothing. It´s all mumbo jumbo maths.

 

[Native]

Dipped into this and established the guy has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Schwarzschild metric, then looked him up and confirmed I was right: Stephen J. Crothers. He's a handyman, gardener, and (very) amateur 'scientist' who publishes nonsense on viXra and his own website, rather than face peer review.

It's very easy to bamboozle people if you know a bit about mathematics or mathematical science and your target audience knows nothing.

Did you even WATCH the video before you you went to wiki´s gossipping pages in where critical and independent persons per definition are alienated, simply because they reveal The Emperors New Clothes in the standing science?

Of course Stephen Crothers - and other independent thinkers outside the squared boxes - are forced to use vixra.com because the rigid consensus science are so scared by him and others, that they´ll do anything to put him/them away in a dark corner.

It's very easy to bamboozle people if you know a bit about mathematics or mathematical science and your target audience knows nothing.

Obviously you dont know much enough of maths to discover what kind of illogical and inventive nonsens the standing theorists are tinkering with in their equations.

BTW: What on Earth are you doing in this OP anyway? Can´t you even read an OP context before you reply?

 

[ratiocinator]

Did you even WATCH the video before you you went to wiki´s gossipping pages

As I said, I watched enough to know that the presenter hadn't got a clue what he was talking about in a subject I've studied myself.

Obviously you dont know much enough of maths to discover what kind of illogical and inventive nonsens the standing theorists are tinkering with in their equations.

How would you know who is right about mathematics?

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, as "obvious" as that may have seemed to you, I tentatively took it to mean people who don't necessarily play by

The who? What in the hell are you going on about? Make some sense man. I dare you.

I know, as I understand, that there exists no "Natural Numbers", "Real numbers" or any "Natural Mathematics" in the nature or in reality even then they use these phrases/clauses as subjective ideas/opinions/terms. Right friends, please?
Doesn't it create space for a "maverick", please?

Regards

 

[Native]

As I said, I watched enough to know that the presenter hadn't got a clue what he was talking about in a subject I've studied myself.

"Watched enough"? So you even didn´t reached his conclusions?

This is excactly why shouldn´t be in this OP anyway, because you have NO *Maverick Mathemahical* skills at all. You´re just uncritically following the indoctrinated path INSIDE the squared box and it doesn´t seem that you´re coming out of the box any time soon.

This is also why you´re not able to jugde others who have left the box and begin to think independently and critically of whats going on.

 

[shunyadragon]

Dipped into this and established the guy has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Schwarzschild metric, then looked him up and confirmed I was right: Stephen J. Crothers. He's a handyman, gardener, and (very) amateur 'scientist' who publishes nonsense on viXra and his own website, rather than face peer review.

It's very easy to bamboozle people if you know a bit about mathematics or mathematical science and your target audience knows nothing.

Thank you for the info!

 

[shunyadragon]

Did you even WATCH the video before you you went to wiki´s gossipping pages in where critical and independent persons per definition are alienated, simply because they reveal The Emperors New Clothes in the standing science?

Of course Stephen Crothers - and other independent thinkers outside the squared boxes - are forced to use vixra.com because the rigid consensus science are so scared by him and others, that they´ll do anything to put him/them away in a dark corner.

Obviously you dont know much enough of maths to discover what kind of illogical and inventive nonsens the standing theorists are tinkering with in their equations.

BTW: What on Earth are you doing in this OP anyway? Can´t you even read an OP context before you reply?

Stephen Crothers details: Are Stephen Crothers' claims legitimate?

He is not a competent source. Footnotes on article researching his references and comments on his misinformation..

• 
  19
  This would be the same Stephen Crothers who seems proud of being expelled from his PhD course and has called Paul Davies and George Szekeres "inept". There may be occasions where one man is right and everyone else is wrong (Galileo?), but I don't think this is one of those occasions. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 8:41
• 13
  There is no way to answer this if you're a layman. On the one hand you have Stephen Crothers saying black holes don't exist. On the other hand you have every other physicist since 1916 saying they do. As a layman how can you tell who is right? The only way to learn enough physics to judge for yourself. Every argument I could make to a layman comes down to saying that history suggests the majority are right most of the time. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 9:37
• 11
  Einstein did not deny that the Schwarzschild metric was a valid solution to the equations of GR. He believed that in the real world a black hole wouldn't form due to rotation of the infalling matter. He subsequently discovered that his own equations predict that rotation cannot stop matter falling into a black hole once it gets closer than three Schwarzschild radii, and consequently changed his mind. The paragraph you cite says: This paper received no citations, and the conclusions are well understood to be wrong. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 10:26
• 6
  I did look on Crothers' site, and I glanced through his papers on vixra.org. I have also read Schwarzschild's original paper - in fact I read it many years ago. My point is simply that non-specialists are not in a position to judge the validity of his claims so how can I answer your question? Except to say, which is undoubtably true, that his view is not the mainstream one. – John Rennie Oct 12 '13 at 14:11
• 3
  I'm downvoting for the reasons given here: meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4918 . If the OP wants to replace or supplement the video link with a link to Crothers' papers on vixra, I'll be happy to remove my downvote. – user4552 Oct 12 '13 at 15:49

 

[shunyadragon]

What!?

Apparently you didn´t understand that THE ENTIRE video context dealt with flawed use of maths, hence there is NOTHING to understand at all. There is nothing. It´s all mumbo jumbo math's.

The entire video is flawed math and science by a layman unreliable non-scientist.