Re: Quantum Mechanics: established fact?


"srp" <srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:448B33D5.9020300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
T Wake a écrit :
In <448B2250.9000007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sent to sci.physics on Saturday
10
June 2006 20:48, srp (srp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) had a brainstorm and wrote:
Yet it is being discussed on this group.

I meant its contents, obviously. Not a peep.

Ok, but you cant exactly call this newsgroup representative of science.

I am no longer working in academia so even _if_ I were to agree with you,

No need to agree with me. Simply telling me why a seamless mathematical
demonstration is rejected from formal publication, would be a great
litmus test.

That implies reading your work. Something which will take me time without
rewarding me for spending that time.

it wouldn't remove your belief in the community holding you back.

But I don't think the community is holding me back. Quite the
contrary, I specifically think the community cannot hold me back.

Ok then. Good for you.

I don't think I can prove you wrong. I can agree with you, and not
working
as a researcher I wouldn't be part of the "community" or I can disagree
with you and be under the leash.

Not really. I simply am curious at a real opinion from an insider as
to why real edge issues are never discussed openly by physicists.

Well, I am not an insider, but when I "was" they were discussed pretty
openly. The main reason lay people dont get involved is that it is far from
interesting listening to geeks arguing the toss over the placement of a +
sign, seven pages into a document.

Sorry if I prodded a little hard. I could have been better mannered.

Its ok. This is USENET, I am sure people will do worse to me.


.

Loading