Re: Astronomers,amateur or otherwise.

On Mar 30, 1:09 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 30, 6:59 pm, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Sorry oriel36 but you are still just posting minor variations of the
same old material.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go? Please explain in detail why this has
not been done or if it has been done what happened.

Peer review is a component of empiricism which in turn is a very
limited way to view terrestrial and celestial phenomena,

quoting Blaise Pascal:
We must see the matter at once, at one
glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain
degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that
men of intuition are mathematicians,

Apparently, the translation is: what he is presenting belongs in the
category of mystical religious insights, which peer-reviewed
scientific journals are notably unqualified to deal with. It's hard
for me to argue with that.

John Savard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Astronomers,amateur or otherwise.
    ... and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream ... value inherent in the irony was appreciated. ... Look,I have my own personal sporge flooder following me around and you ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Astronomers,amateur or otherwise.
    ... I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same ... If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand ... and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Astronomers,amateur or otherwise.
    ... ukastronomy wrote: ... and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream ... I'm assuming he feels he has no peers. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)