Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457427 > unrolled thread

Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-03 19:00 +0200
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 11:01 -0700
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 18:22 -0700
      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-04 08:48 +0200
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-04 16:25 +0200
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:28 -0700
            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-05 05:27 +0200
              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-05 09:27 +0200
                Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-05 11:59 +0200
                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-06 10:26 +0200
                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-06 10:48 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-07 12:18 +0200
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:07 +0200
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-08 00:28 -0700
            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-08 19:48 +0200
              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-08 20:40 +0200
              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-08 13:44 -0700
                Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-09 09:23 +0200
                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-09 07:40 -0700
                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-10 20:15 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Adam Stefaniak <adam.stefaniak@hotmail.co.uk> - 2018-05-10 13:35 -0700
                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 06:29 -0700
                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-11 21:03 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-12 00:22 +0200
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-12 10:44 +0000
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-12 13:34 +0200
                            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-12 20:23 +0000
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-13 07:09 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 04:21 -0700
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-13 09:33 +0200
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:47 +0200
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:55 -0700
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 11:03 -0700
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:50 -0700
                            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-17 12:25 +0200
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:37 +0200
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 13:24 -0700
                                Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-18 21:01 +0200
                                  Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-18 14:02 -0700
                                    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-19 12:20 +0200
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 04:22 -0700
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 04:26 -0700
                      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:22 -0700
                        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-22 20:38 +0200
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2018-05-22 12:12 -0700
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 22:16 +0000
                          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:42 -0700
                            Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-24 18:13 +0200
                              Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-29 14:44 -0700
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 06:44 -0700
      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:08 -0700
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:18 -0700
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 09:40 -0700
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> - 2018-05-08 16:47 +0000
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 10:52 -0700
    Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies "effectuationism@gmail.com" <effectuationism@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 07:16 -0700
    Re:Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-07 19:11 +0200
      Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-07 21:49 +0200
        Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:25 +0200
          Re: Big-Bang George Lemaitre and his studies Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-25 19:29 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#457758

@Thomas Heger:
> Well yes. But this is a forum about relativity, not about conspiracies.

Really? I haven't noticed. It has 'relativity' in the name, alright.
Other than than, one just needs to look at the types of threads being posted in here. 
1/3rd is the same old people peddling their pet personal guesses and numerology as if they were challenges to the science they can't seem to understand despite valiant efforts of a few knowledgeable Don Quixotes. All challenges to these people's faulty understanding is framed in terms of conspiracies by the scientific cabal trying to silence the(ir) truth.
All their interest in relativity is limited to using it as a vessel to feed their megalomaniacal delusions. 

The other 2/3rds is drug spambots illegally selling medication to these same troubled minds. 

There's an occasional valid discussion started once in a blue moon, but it does not a forum make.

 
> I actually don't think, that 'conspiracy' would be necessary. It just 
> took some kind of order from high in the hierarchy and Lemaitre got his 
> doctorate.

Right, right. There's no need for conspiracy apart from this here conspiracy.
Of course everybody who peddles in conspiracy theories thinks their personal one is an exception and actually true. 

Here's why what you wrote falls into this category:
- you started with a foregone conclusion, which you then try to support (Lemaitre is a fraud)
- you claim certainty in knowledge you haven't shown to posses (it was impossible to gain doctorate this fast - all while never having read any actual biography of the man, nor his thesis)
- you ignore arguments and evidence to the contrary, i.e. cherry-picking (a contemporary example of another fast-track doctorate was provided; the requirements for PhD being just the defence of a thesis, not years of attendance)


I would think that a person with real interest in uncovering the facts of the matter would perhaps start by reading one of Lemaitre's biographies (not just blurbs on the internet). Find out about the calibre of his mind. Learn what was he doing with his spare time during the four years of the war. Heck, find out how much out-of-trench time did soldiers have. And whether that was any different for an artillery officer.

These days there are easy options for finding such books - both legal and the less savoury.

I don't mean to offend you personally (I don't even know you). But I'm going to call out conspiracy theory when I see it, and this one is rather lame.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457780

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 3:23:03 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.05.2018 um 22:44 schrieb Adam Stefaniak:
> 
> >> Learning takes time. Even a genius like Gauss or Riemann could not have
> >> made it that fast.
> >>
> >> So, after all, it sounds, smells and tastes like fraud...
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> > 
> > What, Banach is a fraud now too?
> > 
> 
> I don't know Banach and had no intention to claim he did anything 
> fraudulent.
> 
> Even Lemaitre had eventually good intentions.
> 
> But there was seemingly some sort of power acting hidden behind the 
> scene, which gave orders to Lemaitre and granted his doctorate and later 
> career.
> 
> This power uses, seemingly, intentional scientific fraud as means for 
> some kind of (unknown) purpose.
> 
> 
> TH

So you only intend to smear Lamaitre because
"it sounds, smells and tastes like fraud".

and you agree that
> Even Lemaitre had eventually good intentions.

Does that mean you found nothing wrong with his published works?
Discussing "intentions" is very difficult to prove.

Your real purpowse seem to be to discuss "this power":
> But there was seemingly some sort of power acting hidden behind the 
> scene
> This power uses, seemingly, intentional scientific fraud as means for 
> some kind of (unknown) purpose.
 
To me such a flimsy claim "sounds, smells and tastes like"
anti-Catholic bias. With no evidence other than the quickness
that Lamaitre was granted his degrees.

I will give you a counter example, an intern of mine.
When we reviewed his resume,  his courses and grade average 
impressed us for a Junior (3rd) year student. However, when we
interviewed him, we learned he was a freshman (first year).
When he worked for us, his performance was excellent. When
he graduates he will be receiving a BS and MS together.
(Normally a 6 year process, he will complete in 3 years.)

Do you also suspect some "Power" involved in this student's
achievements? Or do you only feel the need to denigrate Lamaitre?
Is it jealousy or some other agenda?

If you are going to criticize a man's career, I only ask
you to be honest about your "intentions".

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457801

Am 11.05.2018 um 15:29 schrieb Edward Prochak:
...
> So you only intend to smear Lamaitre because
> "it sounds, smells and tastes like fraud".
> 
> and you agree that
>> Even Lemaitre had eventually good intentions.
>
'good intentions' does not equal 'good'.

> Does that mean you found nothing wrong with his published works?
> Discussing "intentions" is very difficult to prove.
> 
I don't like 'big-bang theory' and that was Lemaitre's invention.

> Your real purpowse seem to be to discuss "this power":
>> But there was seemingly some sort of power acting hidden behind the
>> scene
>> This power uses, seemingly, intentional scientific fraud as means for
>> some kind of (unknown) purpose.
>   
> To me such a flimsy claim "sounds, smells and tastes like"
> anti-Catholic bias. With no evidence other than the quickness
> that Lamaitre was granted his degrees.
> 
> I will give you a counter example, an intern of mine.
> When we reviewed his resume,  his courses and grade average
> impressed us for a Junior (3rd) year student. However, when we
> interviewed him, we learned he was a freshman (first year).
> When he worked for us, his performance was excellent. When
> he graduates he will be receiving a BS and MS together.
> (Normally a 6 year process, he will complete in 3 years.)
> 

Bachelor and master degrees were not the way how universities in Belgium 
in 1920 were organized.

I guess they had a system somehow similar to Germany, but actually I 
don't know.

In Germany we had another system, were studies at a university usually 
ended with a diploma or similar. That took about four or five years.

After the end of the regular time you were allowed to postgraduate work, 
usually as assistant. This takes a couple of years, too, maybe three 
years. In this time you do some sort of scientific research. About this 
research you write a thesis. After a few exams and after the thesis was 
accepted, you receive a degree as 'doctor' (~>PhD).

This takes usually about ten years, possibly a little less.

But Lemaitre made it in less then two.

> Do you also suspect some "Power" involved in this student's
> achievements? Or do you only feel the need to denigrate Lamaitre?
> Is it jealousy or some other agenda?
> 
> If you are going to criticize a man's career, I only ask
> you to be honest about your "intentions".

???

I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against 
Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent 
title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457805

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:


 
> 
> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against 
> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent 
> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.

Proper approach would then be

a) to stop speculations and verify the validity of his degree
b) to challenge the mathematical analysis leading to his  conclusions
b) to challenge experimental confirmations of partial  ideas.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457814

Libor Striz wrote:

> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
>> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
> 
> Proper approach would then be
> a) to stop speculations and verify the validity of his degree b) to
> challenge the mathematical analysis leading to his  conclusions b) to
> challenge experimental confirmations of partial  ideas.

How many b's are there in you proper approach that would be?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457822

Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> Wrote in message:
> Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
>>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
>>> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
>> 
>> Proper approach would then be
>> a) to stop speculations and verify the validity of his degree b) to
>> challenge the mathematical analysis leading to his  conclusions b) to
>> challenge experimental confirmations of partial  ideas.
> 
> How many b's are there in you proper approach that would be?
> 

It must be a boring life
if such a nitpicking is worthy your time and effort.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457833

Libor Striz wrote:

> Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> Wrote in message:
>> Libor Striz wrote:
>> 
>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
>>>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>>>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently
>>>> fraudulent title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
>>> 
>>> Proper approach would then be a) to stop speculations and verify the
>>> validity of his degree b) to challenge the mathematical analysis
>>> leading to his  conclusions b) to challenge experimental confirmations
>>> of partial  ideas.
>> 
>> How many b's are there in you proper approach that would be?
>
> It must be a boring life if such a nitpicking is worthy your time and
> effort.

The czech contribution, the worst song I ever heard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457839

Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> Wrote in message:
> Libor Striz wrote:
> 
>> Otto Wahl <tlow@wtiwor.oc> Wrote in message:
>>> Libor Striz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
>>>>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>>>>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently
>>>>> fraudulent title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
>>>> 
>>>> Proper approach would then be a) to stop speculations and verify the
>>>> validity of his degree b) to challenge the mathematical analysis
>>>> leading to his  conclusions b) to challenge experimental confirmations
>>>> of partial  ideas.
>>> 
>>> How many b's are there in you proper approach that would be?
>>
>> It must be a boring life if such a nitpicking is worthy your time and
>> effort.
> 
> The czech contribution, the worst song I ever heard.
> 
Quite a stupid troll bait.

Most nymshifting trolls are at least consistent in their supposed sex.
You are not.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457819

On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 2:03:37 PM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:

> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against 
> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent 
> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.

What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD
in such short time?  

At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper
at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam
Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his 
teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have* 
been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly
after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject
worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann–
Bernays–Gödel set theory.

He also played a pretty decent game of pinball. I lost the single time that
I played against him.

A Los Angeles Times news article about him called him the "Caltech Math Whiz", and jokingly described his appearance saying that he (my best recollection)
"didn't exactly not look like Alfred E. Newman." I thought that was pretty
cruel, and he absolutely didn't want to talk about the article when I brought
it up. He was pretty hurt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rubin


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457840

Am 12.05.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
>> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
> 
> What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD
> in such short time?
> 
> At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper
> at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam
> Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his
> teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have*
> been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly
> after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject
> worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann–
> Bernays–Gödel set theory.
>

I didn't say, that Lemaitre was not a genius, even if I have doubts he was.

I wrote, that his career looks like fraud - possibly not his, but by 
some kind of authority.

So we should put a large red flag at him and everything he said or did.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457842

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
> Am 12.05.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> 
>>> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
>>> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
>>> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
>> 
>> What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD
>> in such short time?
>> 
>> At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper
>> at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam
>> Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his
>> teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have*
>> been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly
>> after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject
>> worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann–
>> Bernays–Gödel set theory.
>>
> 
> I didn't say, that Lemaitre was not a genius, even if I have doubts he was.
> 
> I wrote, that his career looks like fraud - possibly not his, but by 
> some kind of authority.
> 
> So we should put a large red flag at him and everything he said or did.

This was the primary purpose of all the topic, not the case of his
 doctorate, that was just a welcome excuse.

Why not to put a red flag on your intentions ?

What he said or did in science, is verifiable and was verified
 mathematically  or experimentally. Focus on that, not on the
 doctorate, as your suspicion is not backed up.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457856

On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:33:38 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.05.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:
> 
> >> I'm not quite certain want you try to say. I have nothing against
> >> Lemaitre's career. I had something against a) his apparently fraudulent
> >> title and b) his invention called 'big-bang theory'.
> > 
> > What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD
> > in such short time?
> > 
> > At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper
> > at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam
> > Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his
> > teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have*
> > been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly
> > after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject
> > worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann–
> > Bernays–Gödel set theory.
> >
> 
> I didn't say, that Lemaitre was not a genius, even if I have doubts he was.
> 
> I wrote, that his career looks like fraud - possibly not his, but by 
> some kind of authority.

"fraud by some kind of authority"

I Second That 

> 
> So we should put a large red flag at him and everything he said or did.
> 
> 
> TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457858

On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 2:33:38 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 12.05.2018 um 13:21 schrieb Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog:

> > What makes you so sure that geniuses don't exist capable of achieving a PhD
> > in such short time?
> > 
> > At Caltech, I knew a kid who wrote his first peer-reviewed mathematics paper
> > at the age of 13, entered as a freshman at the age of 14, was named a Putnam
> > Fellow every year he attended as an undergraduate, was called upon by his
> > teachers any time they got stumped in a complex derivation, and *could have*
> > been awarded a PhD solely on the basis of his publication history shortly
> > after his graduation, except his advisor wanted him to tackle a subject
> > worthy of his talents, so had him spending several years tackling Von Neumann–
> > Bernays–Gödel set theory.
> >
> 
> I didn't say, that Lemaitre was not a genius, even if I have doubts he was.
> 
> I wrote, that his career looks like fraud - possibly not his, but by 
> some kind of authority.
> 
> So we should put a large red flag at him and everything he said or did.

I would say that your entire posting history represents fraud with no
semblance of authority.

So we should put a large red flag on you and everything that you say or do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458000

On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 3:33:38 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> I didn't say, that Lemaitre was not a genius, even if I have doubts he was.
> 
> I wrote, that his career looks like fraud - possibly not his, but by 
> some kind of authority.
> 
> So we should put a large red flag at him and everything he said or did.
> 
> 
> TH

Continuing the pseudo-science of insult in innuendo.

Let's see again how suspicious this looks:
(reading through wikipedia)

Began studying in 1911 for 3 years
went to war 1914 to 1917.
studied 3 more years to obtain degree in 1920
worked for 3 years to be ordained a priest in 1923
became graduate student in astronomy in 1923
     at the University of Cambridge one year.
Next was one year at MIT Doctoral program.
(I presume completed PhD at MIT in 1925.)
Began career in 1925, as part-time lecturer at the
 Catholic University of Leuven.

So years of undergraduate & graduate & doctoral study:
1911-1914  3 years
1917-1920  3 years
1923-1925  2 years
Total 8 years of study. Doesn't look unreasonable to me.
You really think this is too short a time?


No insult intended, but may I ask you Thomas:
   How long did it take you to go from high school to PhD?

Ed
My highest is a masters degree. I'm no genius.  8^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458132

Am 15.05.2018 um 21:50 schrieb Edward Prochak:

> Continuing the pseudo-science of insult in innuendo.

Well, I had no intention of insult.  Actually I was trying to challenge 
his invention 'big-bang theory' by questioning his personal integrity.

> Let's see again how suspicious this looks:
> (reading through wikipedia)
> 
> Began studying in 1911 for 3 years
> went to war 1914 to 1917.
> studied 3 more years to obtain degree in 1920

No, since the university of Leuven was closed until January 1919.

So he could only have started with mathematics in Leuven after the 
reopening of that university in 1919.
He finished math with a doctorate (~ PhD) in 1920 (I don't know the 
exact date). That seems to be a little short for a PhD from start to finish.

Other possibility: he started to study somewhere else (eventually in the 
USA) and possibly at some other date (eventually much earlier).

This would be a fraud, too.

So we have to question everything in relation to this person, even 
identity and nationality.

(Same btw with Edwin Hubble.)

> worked for 3 years to be ordained a priest in 1923
> became graduate student in astronomy in 1923
>       at the University of Cambridge one year.
> Next was one year at MIT Doctoral program.
> (I presume completed PhD at MIT in 1925.)
> Began career in 1925, as part-time lecturer at the
>   Catholic University of Leuven.
> 
> So years of undergraduate & graduate & doctoral study:
> 1911-1914  3 years
> 1917-1920  3 years
> 1923-1925  2 years
> Total 8 years of study. Doesn't look unreasonable to me.
> You really think this is too short a time?
> 
> 

8 years is some time. 'Short' is always a question of the perspective.

If you compare 8 years with the age of the universe, than 8 years is 
very short.

If you have to sit in a prison cell for eight years, this would 
certainly be very long.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458133

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
> Am 15.05.2018 um 21:50 schrieb Edward Prochak:
>
> 
> Well, I had no intention of insult.  Actually I was trying to challenge 
> his invention 'big-bang theory' by questioning his personal integrity.

What about the personal integrity at purposal accusing somebody
 from a froud without the verified subject of the fraud, instead
 of verifying the his idea instead ?

You say by other words that if Pythagoras was a notorious liar,
 his theorem is probably false.


> No, since the university of Leuven was closed until January 1919.

After a WWI/WWII, many education institutions treatef former
 students in a special mode. They did not focus so much on
 formalities,, onassed years, exams and formal checks,  but on
 their skills and achievements.  Therefore the  real formal
 studying period was often much shorter.

Scientific hypothesis testing is not based on personality  analysis,
but on testing of the hypothesis itself, formally, theoretically
 and experimentally.

> So we have to question everything in relation to this person, even 
> identity and nationality.

Pythagoras theorem validity does not depend on his nationality
 ,identity nor religion.



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458194

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:25:27 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.05.2018 um 21:50 schrieb Edward Prochak:
> 
> > Continuing the pseudo-science of insult in innuendo.
> 
> Well, I had no intention of insult.  Actually I was trying to challenge 
> his invention 'big-bang theory' by questioning his personal integrity.

Hardly a method of scientific research.
> 
> > Let's see again how suspicious this looks:
> > (reading through wikipedia)
> > 
> > Began studying in 1911 for 3 years
> > went to war 1914 to 1917.
> > studied 3 more years to obtain degree in 1920
> 
> No, since the university of Leuven was closed until January 1919.
> 
> So he could only have started with mathematics in Leuven after the 
> reopening of that university in 1919.

And he was held in suspended animation?
Never heard of independent study?

> He finished math with a doctorate (~ PhD) in 1920 (I don't know the 
> exact date). That seems to be a little short for a PhD from start to finish.
> 
Not necessarily the same. But I honestly don't know.

> Other possibility: he started to study somewhere else (eventually in the 
> USA) and possibly at some other date (eventually much earlier).

And I listed the 2 years of study in the USA.
so your comment at this point is useless.

> 
> This would be a fraud, too.

Innuendo.
> 
> So we have to question everything in relation to this person, even 
> identity and nationality.

Nonsense.
> 
> (Same btw with Edwin Hubble.)
> 
> > worked for 3 years to be ordained a priest in 1923
> > became graduate student in astronomy in 1923
> >       at the University of Cambridge one year.
> > Next was one year at MIT Doctoral program.
> > (I presume completed PhD at MIT in 1925.)
> > Began career in 1925, as part-time lecturer at the
> >   Catholic University of Leuven.
> > 
> > So years of undergraduate & graduate & doctoral study:
> > 1911-1914  3 years
> > 1917-1920  3 years
> > 1923-1925  2 years
> > Total 8 years of study. Doesn't look unreasonable to me.
> > You really think this is too short a time?
> > 
> > 
> 
> 8 years is some time. 'Short' is always a question of the perspective.
> 
> If you compare 8 years with the age of the universe, than 8 years is 
> very short.
> 
> If you have to sit in a prison cell for eight years, this would 
> certainly be very long.
> 
> TH

Your argument was he spent too little time working on his degree.
So you have to argue whether 8 years is too short.

And I notice no answer to my question about your scholarly background.
For the record I completed BS Physics and MS Electrical Engineering
(What might now be called Computer Engineering).

So, again, what's your background?
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458311

Am 17.05.2018 um 22:24 schrieb Edward Prochak:

>>> Continuing the pseudo-science of insult in innuendo.
>>
>> Well, I had no intention of insult.  Actually I was trying to challenge
>> his invention 'big-bang theory' by questioning his personal integrity.
> 
> Hardly a method of scientific research.

Well, that's in fact true.

But can you imagine, how many times my own personal integrity was 
questioned, with the aim to discredit my ideas?

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458336

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 3:01:57 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.05.2018 um 22:24 schrieb Edward Prochak:
> 
> >>> Continuing the pseudo-science of insult in innuendo.
> >>
> >> Well, I had no intention of insult.  Actually I was trying to challenge
> >> his invention 'big-bang theory' by questioning his personal integrity.
> > 
> > Hardly a method of scientific research.
> 
> Well, that's in fact true.
> 
> But can you imagine, how many times my own personal integrity was 
> questioned, with the aim to discredit my ideas?
> 
> TH

Well, to be honest, at this point I am beginning to question
your integrity. Instead I am trying to stay civil and question
your methods.

So instead, why don't we start another thread to discuss the
science of the BB theory. Let's discuss, each of us treating
the other as the "loyal opposition". Our goal should be to learn
how the universe works.

Respectfully,
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458381

Am 18.05.2018 um 23:02 schrieb Edward Prochak:

>>>>> Continuing the pseudo-science of insult in innuendo.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I had no intention of insult.  Actually I was trying to challenge
>>>> his invention 'big-bang theory' by questioning his personal integrity.
>>>
>>> Hardly a method of scientific research.
>>
>> Well, that's in fact true.
>>
>> But can you imagine, how many times my own personal integrity was
>> questioned, with the aim to discredit my ideas?
>>
>> TH
> 
> Well, to be honest, at this point I am beginning to question
> your integrity. Instead I am trying to stay civil and question
> your methods.
> 
> So instead, why don't we start another thread to discuss the
> science of the BB theory. Let's discuss, each of us treating
> the other as the "loyal opposition". Our goal should be to learn
> how the universe works.
> 
> Respectfully,
OK

my idea about 'black holes' and 'big bang' is a little different to 
mainstream.

It's actually quite simple, but a little unusual:

the axis of time could be shifted and to a shifted time belongs a 
certain region, which I call a 'time-domaine'.

The shifted time causes things in such a realm to look either red- or 
blue-shifted.

If the direction is  'blue' things get smaller and radiate with higher 
frequency.

In the direction 'red' things appear as larger and slower (and more 
reddish of course).

In the local view the things do not change and everything stays as it 
is. But seen from another spot the system could become blue-shifted, 
even to infinity.

Then that realm drops out of 'existence' (drops into a 'black hole').

The opposite is 'pop out of nowhere' (-> 'big bang').

The items in such a realm look redshifted later.

Only this is a mutual relation and only apparently there drops something 
out of existence and into a black hole.


TH

ps:

I have also kind of 'book' written about this idea, that you find here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web