Taken from the Physics Forum posts.

Some Indian academics have an idea.

http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90089.htm

What say you?

Sounds much like dkv's ideeas and approach. Besides the extremal gibberish in the post you gave, I see no reference to a more serious paper, peer-reviewed or not. So unless I see such a paper, without self-serving boasting, I will treat it is gibberish.

Boss this is not what I am saying.
It is very different.It talks about forces and all that. We all know Force is just a manifestation of field in time.
What I had offered was a different conceptual pradigm. The supposed Anti Gravity in my discussion occurs due to the decay of no-absolute background theory into a new residual background theory.In short a Dimensional collapse and recreation takes place.The very idea of point becomes inapproachable in the pure residual field.

dkv:"Boss this is not what I am saying.
It is very different...."

I wasn't referring to the content, but to the form. A lot of gibberish, claims of fundamentally new views and phenomena, and "presentation" of "ideas" on whichever forums you want except the ones really dedicated to such topics.

No scientist that I know, and I know a lot of them, would first announce his views on some obscure web page. The first thing they would do would be writing a paper, posting it on a dedicated e-print archive so that everyone in the field could read it, review it and comment it, and then send it to a journal for publication, with eventually some changes. Or, for the fields where such preprint archives do not yet exist, they would send it directly to a journal for publication.

What the two guys did was exactly what you did. Boasted about their fundamentaly new results/ideeas in an incomprehensible manner to everyone but the colleagues and peers in the field (if they really are scientists). Which is exactly what you usually do.

As for me, I will wait for the published paper, or at least for a (hopefully more comprehensible) preprint on some relevant and dedicated e-archive.

wasn't referring to the content, but to the form. A lot of gibberish, claims of fundamentally new views and phenomena, and "presentation" of "ideas" on whichever forums you want except the ones really dedicated to such topics.
REP: Where are the relevant forums? Before I can publish I want to get some sound approval from the people in this group.I wish to convince members of this forum so that we can dedicate our finding to the world in a more consistent way. Obviously my contribution alone was not sufficient. It would not have been possible without discussion with you and Rose and everyone who asked me the right questions..
All the fundamental assumptions and related consequences can be discussed in a logical way.
=============================================
What the two guys did was exactly what you did. Boasted about their fundamentaly new results/ideeas in an incomprehensible manner to everyone but the colleagues and peers in the field (if they really are scientists). Which is exactly what you usually do.
REP: I am not a Scientist by Degree and my main aim has been to demonstrate the practical aspects of so called weird thinking.Yes I do agree that I should take it through a journal and for that I have already sent mails to Stephan Hawking and Brian Green for their remarks.And I do not mind if you wish to explore this idea on paper as some kind of collaboration between us.
=============================================

dkv: "Where are the relevant forums? Before I can publish I want to get some sound approval from the people in this group."

They are preprint archives. Try www.arxiv.org, or google spires.

dkv:"I wish to convince members of this forum so that we can dedicate our finding to the world in a more consistent way."

You haven't convinced me yet.As I said, write a paper...

dkv: "I am not a Scientist by Degree and my main aim has been to demonstrate the practical aspects of so called weird thinking."

No contest from me about the weird part. As for the rest...

dkv: "Yes I do agree that I should take it through a journal and for that I have already sent mails to Stephan Hawking and Brian Green for their remarks."

Bwahahahahahaha! Good luck with your emails. Let me put it this way: Hawking won't answer you for the obvious reasons (he hardly answers the emails from his collaborators, and he is not exactly inclined to answer fan letters; but maybe you will be lucky...) and if Greene does, be very careful of what he says. He is a good writer, but is hardly considered a good physicist, in cosmology, theoretical physics or else.

dkv: "And I do not mind if you wish to explore this idea on paper as some kind of collaboration between us."

Well, dkv, thanks for the opportunity but no thank you. I have my own projects I am working on, on one hand, and on the other hand, you havn't convinced me by a very long shot that your gibberish is worth for me to put time and effort into. Sorry. You'll have to contend yourself with either Hawking or Green

Do the paperwork then flush. (In India, squat in the street then hope for a monsoon. 1.1 billion squatters/day make for an impressive poop deck.)

Not even wrong.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

For a good laugh, and that is all it is worth, take a look at the original trash: http://strepulsion.org/partv.htm

I love these links:
"Where Newton was wrong"
"Where Einstein was wrong"
"Soul the supreme order of the universe"


jjw004 ... there is this concept you apparently have yet to learn about ... it is called research. It took me less than 30 seconds to find out who these two are.

OK all:
Don?t shoot the messenger.
I know enough to see it as likely nonsense. But with the previous discussion of a potential repulsive gravitation I thought there might be some interest in it.
Any way I do enjoy all the links that get generated. I did not research them knowing you all would and do it better than I.
jjw

Likely nonsense?

From guys that post "Soul the supreme order of the universe"?

Tell me it isn't so.