• 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!

Solution to Cosmology Crisis: Flat Universe with dome

Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Do you know somebody and if yes, can you recommend him to read my file?
Click to expand...

You will need a *lot* more detail to have even a reasonable hypothesis. What you have is barely a 'basic idea'. You need more on exactly why the 'dome' should be emitting a Planck distribution to 1 part in 100,000 but where the variants on *that* match so well with predictions. Without details, there really is nothing here at all.

Next, you have to explain the *differences* between the Doppler shift and the relativistic red shift, especially at large z. There seems to be little awareness of such differences.

Next, Darwinian theory (which is biology, not cosmology) has nothing at all to do with this.

So, all in all, this is one that would immediately be trash-canned if submitted to a journal. You might get a 'polite' refusal letter claiming the issue is full and they don't have space.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
You will need a *lot* more detail to have even a reasonable hypothesis. What you have is barely a 'basic idea'. You need more on exactly why the 'dome' should be emitting a Planck distribution to 1 part in 100,000 but where the variants on *that* match so well with predictions. Without details, there really is nothing here at all.

Next, you have to explain the *differences* between the Doppler shift and the relativistic red shift, especially at large z. There seems to be little awareness of such differences.

Next, Darwinian theory (which is biology, not cosmology) has nothing at all to do with this.

So, all in all, this is one that would immediately be trash-canned if submitted to a journal. You might get a 'polite' refusal letter claiming the issue is full and they don't have space.
Click to expand...
I need a research grant. Without it, I have no motivation. The journals are not accepting the straightforward mathematical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. But it is correct, look the file attached.
 

Attachments

  • x2y3PP.pdf
    42.4 KB · Views: 0
Bob the Unbeliever

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
I need a research grant. Without it, I have no motivation. The journals are not accepting the straightforward mathematical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. But it is correct, look the file attached.
Click to expand...

NOW the actual truth comes out: You just want someone else's MONEY.

Maybe you could apply to Joel Osteen? At last count, he was a multimillionaire-- he has so much money, he built a **moat** around his Castle ("house").

I bet he'd take you seriously, if you offered to put his name on the title of your paper?
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
I need a research grant. Without it, I have no motivation. The journals are not accepting the straightforward mathematical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. But it is correct, look the file attached.
Click to expand...

I looked at it. If I was an editor of a journal, I would not even send it to a referee. It would immediately be trashed and a formal, polite letter of rejection sent. As a referee, I would say without hesitation that it should not be published. As an RF participant, I would simply say you need to learn some real math.

If you send it in to any funding source, it will be rejected. And, behind the scenes, it may even be an object of jokes for the day.

This is NOT anywhere close to a correct proof.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
I looked at it. If I was an editor of a journal, I would not even send it to a referee. It would immediately be trashed and a formal, polite letter of rejection sent. As a referee, I would say without hesitation that it should not be published. As an RF participant, I would simply say you need to learn some real math.

If you send it in to any funding source, it will be rejected. And, behind the scenes, it may even be an object of jokes for the day.

This is NOT anywhere close to a correct proof.
Click to expand...
Just emotions. Any text can be disproven. But not by emotions. Look for violation of Aristotle 3 laws of logic.
 
Spirit of Light

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
questfortruth said:
Just emotions. Any text can be disproven. But not by emotions. Look for violation of Aristotle 3 laws of logic.
Click to expand...
If many professional editors, professors and so on refusing your paper as false or none scientific, what do you think is the reason? May it be that they see your paper lack something or even is not true science?or maybe your theory simply is wrong
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Just emotions. Any text can be disproven. But not by emotions. Look for violation of Aristotle 3 laws of logic.
Click to expand...

I am a professional mathematician. This was not anywhere close to a correct proof.

You asked for a professional opinion. You have one now. You asked for an expert to look at it. One has.

You just don't like the evaluation of your work.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
I am a professional mathematician. This was not anywhere close to a correct proof.

You asked for a professional opinion. You have one now. You asked for an expert to look at it. One has.

You just don't like the evaluation of your work.
Click to expand...
It is trolling. If not, then find a mistake. A single fatal mistake.

Amanaki said:
If many professional editors, professors and so on refusing your paper as false or none scientific, what do you think is the reason? May it be that they see your paper lack something or even is not true science?or maybe your theory simply is wrong
Click to expand...

Do not make fantasies. The editors also "listen to their heart". But the devil is in their heart. Not reason.
 
Spirit of Light

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
questfortruth said:
It is trolling. If not, then find a mistake. A single fatal mistake.



Do not make fantasies. The editors also "listen to their heart". But the devil is in their heart. Not reason.
Click to expand...
Not to offend you, but if you get rejected time and time again, and even professional mathematics on this forum tells you, you are wrong or your theory lack truth in it, is it not time to think that maybe you do actually hold the wrong view on the topic?
Editors look at the facts in the papers, not judging by heart :)

Why do you call everyone who sees things differently than you, and notify you about it for devils?Just because people see it different then you, does not make them evil or devil
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Amanaki said:
Not to offend you, but if you get rejected time and time again, and even professional mathematics on this forum tells you, you are wrong or your theory lack truth in it, is it not time to think that maybe you do actually hold the wrong view on the topic?
Editors look at the facts in the papers, not judging by heart :)

Why do you call everyone who sees things differently than you, and notify you about it for devils?Just because people see it different then you, does not make them evil or devil
Click to expand...
You can read the file about Fermat's Last Theorem. It is very simple. Find the violation of Aristotle 3 laws. Can you?
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
Amanaki said:
Amanaki does not understand mathematics. Tried to look at the paper but do not understand a single line there
Click to expand...
Look then, x*x*x is simply x^3. Then if expression x^3+y^3=1 has no solution in rational numbers (x,y), then (u^2)^3+(v^4)^3=1 has no solution in rational numbers (u,v). Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top