Aha, so you claim you are a physicist, or more precisely, a physicist in rising. Then let's clear some of the issues in what you are saying.
MS in theoretical physics with a minor in physics?And you want me to believe you? Since when have grad degrees minors? But I will do you a favor and I will take you up on your claim that you have a major in something and a minor in CS, an MS in physics, experience as a physicist and experience in some sort of programming and 2 years as a PH.D student in Physics.
I belive that you do realize that you listing some degrees still does not give you the expertise you need for your research, and furthermore does not explain your lack of method in your research (which bewilders me, if your claims are real). Major in something with a minor in CS means almost nothing. As does your software development experience. Building software for soem internet application for example does not give you any insight in building software for patern recognition or image analysis.
Therefore, let me ask you this.What was the subject of your MS research? What type of software development did you do? What is the field of your PH.D research? So that we are clear about your "official" expertise at least, though as a physicist, I would expect your true expertise to be much more extensive than the "official" one.
Once we have cleared these issues, and since you made the claim you are a physicist, let's turn the discussion up a few notches. Although it is absolutely unbelievable that with 2 years of PH.D you could make such a gross error in logic as the one you did in your math background for your image analysis. It's simply unbelievable. Not to mention your obvious lack in knowledge as much as the rest of your research on Martian life is concerned. But then, Dyson & Co. also came with a stupid ideea when they started the Orion Project.
Let's talk about QC. I will grant you that the media has gone rather crazy on the topic, but then it has also done so with string theory, black-holes, DNA, superluminal velocities, and a plethora of other glitzy topics. You being a physicist, should make this media aspect irrelevant to our discussion.So, let's get back to QC, entanglement, teleportation and so on and so forth. Why is it a hoax? And come up with refs please,so that they can be discussed, not with rantings.
As for your research on Mars photos,let's nt talk about parasites, since your comment applies to you equally well. You are protecting your turf without even willing to admit that you actually made an error. What happened with the open-mindedness you desire from the others, when it refers explicitly to you?
Up to this moment I do agree with the reviewers, as I told you before. And this based only on your website. But I would be happy to read the drafts you sent for reviewing. You can upload them on your website, in any format including LaTex.
And you know, your claim of being associated to a university simplifies things, actually. You can take your mathematical proof, put it in a different and more appropriate setting, and go talk to someone from your math department about it. I am pretty surethat if you insist, someone wil be willing to discuss yout math proof with you. Maybe in this way you will actually understand where your reasoning is flawed.
