On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:25:17 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Why not "the Bogdanovs do really not understand what they talk about,
but nevertheless managed to convince some scientists"?

Why not "the Bogdanovs do really not understand what they talk about"
but nevertheless some scientists can make sense of what they talk about?

ark
--

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
--

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:25:17 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:

Daniel Sternheimer (founding fathers of deformation quantization)
Massimo Poratti (string theory and topology expert)
Roman Jackiw (MIT theoretical physicist)
Arkadiusz Jadczyk (theoretical physicist)
... and others ...

The only one I know of those people is Jackiw - but then, I am not an
expert in any of the relevant fields here.

On the other hand Jackiw knows Jadczyk and Jadczyk knows Jackiw.
Sternheimer knows Jadczyk and Jadczyk knows Sternheimer. Jackiw and
Jadczyk independently discovered 3-cocycles:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0212058

ark



--

Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/jadpub.htm
--

Greg Gerardin a écrit :
check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).

In case you couldn't read their extremely "brilliant" book in french
(soon to be translated in english : poor of you), you could read some
excerpts from it, in english :

http://ybmessager.free.fr/docs/potpourri.html

In case you can read french, you could have some fun reading archives
of fr.sci.physics about this issue (the two "genious" themselves, with
numerous names, took part of discussions) and the special blog on the
subject (with links) :

http://ybmessager.free.fr/wp/

Arkadiusz Jadczyk a écrit :
Why not "the Bogdanovs do really not understand what they talk about"
but nevertheless some scientists can make sense of what they talk about?

Is it your new official, as director of the International Institute
of Mathematical Physics (http://th-phys.edu.hk/), position on this
subject ?

Arkadiusz Jadczyk wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:25:17 +0200, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


Why not "the Bogdanovs do really not understand what they talk about,
but nevertheless managed to convince some scientists"?


Why not "the Bogdanovs do really not understand what they talk about"
but nevertheless some scientists can make sense of what they talk about?

Yes, that's also a possibility.



Bye,
Bjoern

YBM wrote:
Greg Gerardin a écrit :

check the bogdanov's theory. it's extremely controversial and taboo but
strikingly brilliant (very intuitive).


In case you couldn't read their extremely "brilliant" book in french
(soon to be translated in english : poor of you), you could read some
excerpts from it, in english :

http://ybmessager.free.fr/docs/potpourri.html

Oh my goodness.


In case you can read french, you could have some fun reading archives
of fr.sci.physics about this issue (the two "genious" themselves, with
numerous names, took part of discussions) and the special blog on the
subject (with links) :

http://ybmessager.free.fr/wp/

I'm a bit familiar with French, but I don't know enough of it to
understand the text there very well.


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher a écrit :
YBM wrote:
In case you couldn't read their extremely "brilliant" book in french
(soon to be translated in english : poor of you), you could read some
excerpts from it, in english :

http://ybmessager.free.fr/docs/potpourri.html

Oh my goodness.

This is only a *very* small part of the nonsense their book is full
of...

Be prepared, it should appear in english soon... Here, in France, we
had to suffer a huuuge TV/radio/press campaign where the twins presented
themselves as the new Einstein. They pretended everywhere to have strong
academic support. Of course they had to falsify some scientists
statement to proove so :

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/b...es/000034.html
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html

YBM wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher a écrit :

YBM wrote:

In case you couldn't read their extremely "brilliant" book in french
(soon to be translated in english : poor of you), you could read some
excerpts from it, in english :

http://ybmessager.free.fr/docs/potpourri.html


Oh my goodness.


This is only a *very* small part of the nonsense their book is full
of...

Be prepared, it should appear in english soon... Here, in France, we
had to suffer a huuuge TV/radio/press campaign where the twins presented
themselves as the new Einstein. They pretended everywhere to have strong
academic support. Of course they had to falsify some scientists
statement to proove so :

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/b...es/000034.html
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html

I see...

Well, what then about the claim that Jackiw endorses their ideas? AFAIK,
Jackiw is a quite knowledgeable scientist - why would he endorse this
stuff? Did the Bogdanovs make that up, too???


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher a écrit :
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/b...es/000034.html
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html

I see...

Well, what then about the claim that Jackiw endorses their ideas? AFAIK,
Jackiw is a quite knowledgeable scientist - why would he endorse this
stuff? Did the Bogdanovs make that up, too???

This is the other Bogdanov rethorical technique : Jackiw did review part
of their thesis. There are definitely part of the Bogdanov's thesis
which are not completely false mathematical statements and could be
supported if you forget the poor formulation and the fact that, as
Oeckl stated, there is nothing really new there. Then the Bogdanov
twins claimed that these "supports" apply to their mystical "theory"
that the Universe pop up from a kind of genetic mathematical code before
the Big Bang.

YBM wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher a écrit :

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/b...es/000034.html
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000377.html


I see...

Well, what then about the claim that Jackiw endorses their ideas? AFAIK,
Jackiw is a quite knowledgeable scientist - why would he endorse this
stuff? Did the Bogdanovs make that up, too???


This is the other Bogdanov rethorical technique : Jackiw did review part
of their thesis. There are definitely part of the Bogdanov's thesis
which are not completely false mathematical statements and could be
supported if you forget the poor formulation and the fact that, as
Oeckl stated, there is nothing really new there. Then the Bogdanov
twins claimed that these "supports" apply to their mystical "theory"
that the Universe pop up from a kind of genetic mathematical code before
the Big Bang.

Thanks! Sounds quite sensible, and is in accord with my own conclusions
I arrived at by looking at some of the excerpts, and at Baez' comments.


So, what do you think - are the Bogdanovs genuinely deluded and believe
that they have really discovered something valuable, or is this all a
giant fraud? That they misquote and misrepresent scientists seems to
support the latter possibility - but I've already seen many honest
people misquoting and misreprenting things, due to being totally deluded
and simply not being able to see what they are doing wrong.

An example: Richard Carrier had an article against the Big Bang at the
Secular Web. He is a quite honest, intelligent man - but nevertheless he
misquoted at least one paper totally. The reason for that was that he
simply misunderstood the paper, due to his blinders - he was convinced
that the BBT is wrong, and saw all through these lenses. Fortunately, in
the meantime, he has come to his senses. :-)



Bye,
Bjoern