Skepticism Vs Negativism and Vs Atheism

[questfortruth]

Hi, bro and sis! I am struggling with rejections of my very logical Articles, for example, the proof of Riemann Hypothesis, abc conjecture, Dark Matter, angels, Holy Spirit. I have questions:

Compare scientific skepticism and ordinary skepticism. And how does this all differ from banal negativism?

How all this is different or relates to Paranoia and Paranoic Schizophrenia?

The opposite of skepticism is trust. Should journals start to trust more, trust the sanity of the submitters? Hereby asking for the scientific rule-following?

Alas, we do not live in a good world. Scientists are the worst sinners. If Einstein did not reveal the secrets of the atom, and the Chinese - the secrets of gunpowder, many would be alive and healthier.

My friend says: I wish, I would have your self-confidence. You have Zero understanding of the questions but at the same time the confidence that your opinion means something. Your position is unshakable.

I reply: I will answer with a quote from the movie "The Matrix", the first episode, the scene in the subway: "he begins to believe."
I believed that I am not a fool, and found grace from the God of Wisdom and Knowledge.

I am positively different from millions of non-prominent and unfamiliar
journal submitters. I have completed secondary school with the Gold Medal,
Tartu University with Cum Laude, and I have successfully published in Physical
Review E and European Physical Journal B. Presented are short clear proofs of
the conjectures from Number Theory, waiting at my home office to be published
by you!
If somebody (including me) has convinced me of having made a mistake, I repent
and will try to correct the mistake. But I cannot correct a mistake, just
because somebody has seemingly joked in saying that I have made a mistake
there. Writing to me rejection letters like ``we have no time to read your
paper because you are not the only submitter [and you are not a Professor];
and it seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation to understand
your approach to the conjecture'' is not acceptable at all as a flaw! Please
look at the type of mistake demonstration I would accept:
If I would write in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that place
and reply: ``2=5+7 does not hold''.

 

[McBell]

Um...
Do you ever stop and consider the possibility, however teeny tiny it may be, that the reason your articles are rejected is because they fail to meet the stated objective?

I mean, you do an awful lot of belly aching about how the world is out to get you, but have you even considered that it is not the world doing you in, but yourself?

 

[exchemist]

Hi, bro and sis! I am struggling with rejections of my very logical Articles, for example, the proof of Riemann Hypothesis, abc conjecture, Dark Matter, angels, Holy Spirit. I have questions:

Compare scientific skepticism and ordinary skepticism. And how does this all differ from banal negativism?

How all this is different or relates to Paranoia and Paranoic Schizophrenia?

The opposite of skepticism is trust. Should journals start to trust more, trust the sanity of the submitters? Hereby asking for the scientific rule-following?

Alas, we do not live in a good world. Scientists are the worst sinners. If Einstein did not reveal the secrets of the atom, and the Chinese - the secrets of gunpowder, many would be alive and healthier.

Natural science is founded on reproducible observation. As your writings contain no reference to observation and since they frequently invoke concepts with no observable effect, such as the Holy Spirit, or angels, they are not scientific. And so they are rejected. Cranks and nutcases are two a penny and one of the jobs of editors is to weed them out. From the material you post, it is not surprising that editors may think you are one or the other, or indeed both.

 

[ratiocinator]

Hi, bro and sis! I am struggling with rejections of my very logical Articles...

Unfortunately, you have shown multiple times, here on this very forum, that you don't really understand logic. This is an adequate explanation for the rejections. The rational response is either to concentrate on some other endeavour, to which you might be more suited, or to recognise you haven't reached the level you thought you had and to go back and study harder.

 

[questfortruth]

And so they are rejected. Cranks and nutcases are two a penny and one of the jobs of editors is to weed them out. From the material you post, it is not surprising that editors may think you are one or the other, or indeed both.

Do you ever stop and consider the possibility, however teeny tiny it may be, that the reason your articles are rejected is because they fail to meet the stated objective?

My friend says: I wish, I would have your self-confidence. You have Zero understanding of the questions but at the same time the confidence that your opinion means something. Your position is unshakable.

I reply: I will answer with a quote from the movie "The Matrix", the first episode, the scene in the subway: "he begins to believe."
I believed that I am not a fool, and found grace from the God of Wisdom and Knowledge.

 

[questfortruth]

recognise you haven't reached the level you thought you had and to go back and study harder.

I am positively different from millions of non-prominent and unfamiliar
journal submitters. I have completed secondary school with the Gold Medal,
Tartu University with Cum Laude, and I have successfully published in Physical
Review E and European Physical Journal B. Presented are short clear proofs of
the conjectures from Number Theory, waiting at my home office to be published
by you!
If somebody (including me) has convinced me of having made a mistake, I repent
and will try to correct the mistake. But I cannot correct a mistake, just
because somebody has seemingly joked in saying that I have made a mistake
there. Writing to me rejection letters like ``we have no time to read your
paper because you are not the only submitter [and you are not a Professor];
and it seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation to understand
your approach to the conjecture'' is not acceptable at all as a flaw! Please
look at the type of mistake demonstration I would accept:
If I would write in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that place
and reply: ``2=5+7 does not hold''.

 

[questfortruth]

not the world doing you in, but yourself?

Cranks and nutcases are two a penny and one of the jobs of editors is to weed them out. From the material you post, it is not surprising that editors may think you are one or the other, or indeed both.

you don't really understand logic

I am positively different from millions of non-prominent and unfamiliar
journal submitters. I have completed secondary school with the Gold Medal,
Tartu University with Cum Laude, and I have successfully published in Physical
Review E and European Physical Journal B. Presented are short clear proofs of
the conjectures from Number Theory, waiting at my home office to be published

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi, bro and sis! I am struggling with rejections of my very logical Articles, for example, the proof of Riemann Hypothesis, abc conjecture, Dark Matter, angels, Holy Spirit. I have questions:

I know you feel very deeply about this and try very hard. I am so sorry that things are so difficult.

The opposite of skepticism is trust. Should journals start to trust more, trust the sanity of the submitters? Hereby asking for the scientific rule-following?

In my opinion the journals are all owned by a few companies, and that is unfortunate. It is as if all of the government funded and public funded research is owned and controlled by private groups.

I reply: I will answer with a quote from the movie "The Matrix", the first episode, the scene in the subway: "he begins to believe."
I believed that I am not a fool, and found grace from the God of Wisdom and Knowledge.

I also love that film. It is about the questions of whether we can know ourselves and how. How does Neo know that he is truly out of the Matrix? When do we grow up? How do we know when we are right or wrong?

 

[Erebus]

Writing to me rejection letters like ``we have no time to read your
paper because you are not the only submitter [and you are not a Professor];
and it seems that it requires considerable effort and meditation to understand
your approach to the conjecture'' is not acceptable at all as a flaw!

This rejection letter, particularly the part I highlighted, is a perfectly valid criticism of your work.

If people can't understand what you're trying to say, it's time to rethink your writing style. You can't assume that a reader automatically knows the thought processes that go into your work. You have to make it coherent and accessible. There are writing workshops and forums available that could provide you with useful feedback and suggestions on how to achieve this.

 

[questfortruth]

How does Neo know that he is truly out of the Matrix? When do we grow up? How do we know when we are right or wrong?

Neo felt the call of the heart, there is Jesus's advice in Bible to follow the heart in confusing situations and doubt. Look song "will you send me an angel" by Scorpions.

All the time, God is the Way, the Path.

In our heart and mind.

If I found grace in your eyes, then please read some part of the:
Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152
There should be some results.

 

[questfortruth]

If people can't understand what you're trying to say, it's time to rethink your writing style. You can't assume that a reader automatically knows the thought processes that go into your work. You have to make it coherent and accessible. There are writing workshops and forums available that could provide you with useful feedback and suggestions on how to achieve this.

But it works up to a certain limit.
Google: "irreducible complexity". It is a term I adopted from biology. It means, that while the increase the complexity of the phenomenon, the reporter loses the ability to describe it simply: the minimal description should grow in complexity as well. For example, this is a case of Hawking Radiation: the reporters over-simplify the Physical process, so the latter becomes illogical.

 

[cladking]

People are not what you think. Almost everyone wants their knowledge predigested and from a book. Few care whether it's right or wrong so woo proliferates.

Back in grade school I wrote a beautiful 64 step proof that anything divided by zero in infinity. I showed it to a couple teachers and classmates and they just said "that's nice" and handed it back. The lack of interest was stunning. I did find the assumption of the conclusion near the end after several days of studying it but my lesson was learned. People don't care.

The meaning of the word "skeptic" has even changed in the intervening years. In those days it meant someone who didn't accept dogma and now it means anyone who does accept dogma. Just dress your dogma up nice and pretty and print it in a book and millions will worship it.

I've known for an even longer time that people believe what they want to believe and see all of reality in terms of these beliefs. But before I wrote my proof I had thought most people want to believe what's right and what's real. Actually most people want to believe what will make them popular, powerful, or approved. We do the same things at the same time and then wonder why we each buy high and sell low.

I don't envy your position since a very small percentage of the population is competent to understand your ideas even if they cared. Things get worse every year because almost all research funding is government funding so you can't even get a job in your own field unless the Peers like you and very few Peers like boat rockers which is defined as anyone who isn't "skeptical". Few Peers want to even look at a refutation of dogma for fear of understanding, or worse, agreeing with it. Not only is all of our economy unsustainable but our culture and science as well.

 

[Erebus]

But it works up to a certain limit.
Google: "irreducible complexity". It is a term I adopted from biology. It means, that while the increase the complexity of the phenomenon, the reporter loses the ability to describe it simply: the minimal description should grow in complexity as well. For example, this is a case of Hawking Radiation: the reporters over-simplify the Physical process, so the latter becomes illogical.

It's certainly true that the topics you're attempting to deal with may be inaccessible to laymen no matter how well you present your arguments. That's something you can't really avoid. However, you aren't presenting your papers to laymen. The topics themselves shouldn't be beyond their comprehension which suggests to me that it's worth examining how you're presenting your ideas.

Just some food for thought.

 

[questfortruth]

Things get worse every year

I am doing these years, I am shaping them. I live in the perfect world: perfect was Trump, now perfect is Biden. We live in the best world, which is only available for the current world level of goodness and love. But, love runs out:

Back in grade school I wrote a beautiful 64 step proof that anything divided by zero in infinity. I showed it to a couple teachers and classmates and they just said "that's nice" and handed it back. The lack of interest was stunning.

I will never let you down, I am happy to read your results.

 

[McBell]

My friend says: I wish, I would have your self-confidence. You have Zero understanding of the questions but at the same time the confidence that your opinion means something. Your position is unshakable.

I reply: I will answer with a quote from the movie "The Matrix", the first episode, the scene in the subway: "he begins to believe."
I believed that I am not a fool, and found grace from the God of Wisdom and Knowledge.

So, you going to answer the question or what?

 

[McBell]

So, you going to answer the question or what?

 

[night912]

My friend says: I wish, I would have your self-confidence. You have Zero understanding of the questions but at the same time the confidence that your opinion means something. Your position is unshakable.

I reply: I will answer with a quote from the movie "The Matrix", the first episode, the scene in the subway: "he begins to believe."
I believed that I am not a fool, and found grace from the God of Wisdom and Knowledge.

And all those before Neo who stood against the agents thinking that they were the One, are all dead.

Please look at the type of mistake demonstration I would accept:
If I would write in a paper: ``2=5+7'', then the editor would find that place
and reply: ``2=5+7 does not hold''.

Please look at the type of mistake you SHOULD also accept:

If you wrote in a paper: "2=5+7"
And the editor's reply was: "We review a lot of papers written by people who has the knowledge and understanding of the subject they've written about. We don't have time for papers from those who cannot differentiate between the subjects of biology and mathematics."


So just because you think that your papers are profound, those who have years of experience beyond your own, does not.


Those who acknowledge their mistakes in the first round, fixes those mistakes and don't repeat it in the second round. Those who refuse to acknowledge their mistakes will repeat them again and again.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am doing these years, I am shaping them. I live in the perfect world: perfect was Trump, now perfect is Biden. We live in the best world, which is only available for the current world level of goodness and love. But, love runs out:

I will never let you down, I am happy to read your results.

Your taste in music is awesome!

 

[ecco]

But it works up to a certain limit.
Google: "irreducible complexity". It is a term I adopted from biology. It means, that while the increase the complexity of the phenomenon, the reporter loses the ability to describe it simply: the minimal description should grow in complexity as well. For example, this is a case of Hawking Radiation: the reporters over-simplify the Physical process, so the latter becomes illogical.

I am doing these years, I am shaping them. I live in the perfect world: perfect was Trump, now perfect is Biden. We live in the best world, which is only available for the current world level of goodness and love. But, love runs out:

If the above are representative of the writing you are submitting, then it is clear why your works are rejected.

In the first quote, you discuss biology and then jump over to Hawking Radiation. The entire quote makes no sense. It is, as some would call it: A Word Salad.

The second quote is just as bad. It is meaningless.

If this criticism sounds harsh, remember, you were trying to understand why your works were being rejected.

Reviewers are not going to accept works for publication that are meaningless and senseless jumbles of words.

 

[questfortruth]

In the first quote, you discuss biology and then jump over to Hawking Radiation. The entire quote makes no sense.

I have a bed in my home. It is a very beautiful one. I have it for 4 years now. My brother has installed it. My brother is very lucky, he has beautiful three children

is this word salat? I have jumped from bed to brother.