Harristotelian Logic

For a while now many of you have swallowed the label placed on me of being a "crank" or "crackpot", which is somewhat understandable I guess as I make plenty of posts that can be considered nutty from a particular point of view.

And I'm no longer apologetic about it.

What should bother at least some of you though (or at least intrigue you a bit) is the sheer size of the hostility generated by someone like me doing just a few things:

1. I look for interesting but simple math results in important areas like primes and post my results and thoughts.


2. I question the status quo in the math and science fields in my posts.


3. I make posts questioning the morals and honesty of mathematicians.

For doing those three things I've faced quite a lot of verbal assault, primarily from the math community, including getting the "crank" and "crackpot" labels.

Sure you may figure mathematicians reasonably don't like it when people question their morals, but then again, how do you prove someone questioning your morals wrong by verbal assaults like calling them names, questioning their sanity, or calling them subhuman?

Strange.

So why do I think anyone on sci.physics or alt.writing might be interested?

Well this Pioneer 10 and 11 drag data is rather direct and simple, and it highlights the kind of corruption that may be spilling over into other fields from the mathematical community.

Basically we have space probes way out there in space which are behaving as if they're going through a somewhat soupy environment as they're slowing down slightly.

Here's a quote from a link at an American Astronomical Society webpage:

"In the absence of any physical theory that predicts such an acceleration, the primary candidate remains systematic error generated by spacecraft systems. However, neither we nor anyone else has been able to find a viable spacecraft systematic that is both large enough and constant enough to explain the anomaly."

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/516.htm

You may feel compelled to shrug if you're a writer and wonder why it matters, as scientists are always coming up with anomalies which defy explanation.

That's what they do.

Well, yes, but what's not normal is for most of them to simply ignore data that could challenge some of the more established theories about the origins and fate of our local universe.

That's new.

That's not good.

Now you may be wondering how that relates to mathematicians, and my issues with the lack of ethics within the mathematical community.

Well mathematicians are kind of different from others because of a key claim they make about their discipline—they claim it's revolution proof.

That is, mathematicians claim that what they believe is true in their field is proven to be true, and is an absolute which cannot be questioned.

The only recent revolution, if you can call it that, was the revelation by Goedel that mathematicians couldn't encompass all of mathematics as they couldn't prove consistency for infinite sized systems within mathematics.

Which basically just says that mathematics is an infinite subject.

Now the problem is that mathematics IS an infinite subject, and while it may be true that while it was simple, a "proof" was a proof—that is, once mathematicians accepted a math proof as correct, it was correct—today mathematical arguments are increasingly complex.

That is, mathematics is no longer so simple.

However, human beings are still relying on human opinion, and mathematicians refuse to admit that they can simply screw up and make human mistakes.

It is my strong opinion that this refusal to acknowledge growing complexity in mathematics with the concomitant inevitability of human error with the rising complexity is the reason for the corruption of the mathematical field.

Consider the recent claims of proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, where a single mathematician hid his activity for seven years (why hide?), and managed to produce one of the densest most incomprehensible documents in human history.

It's long too.

So why can't mathematicians simply acknowledge that maybe, someway, somehow that increasing complexity means that they can't be so sure about "proof"?

They have. But why haven't you heard about it? Well, few have admitted it.

Meanwhile physics has become dominated by tweaking of mathematical equations, and physicists, and other scientists, trained by mathematicians, or trained as mathematicians, are carrying over dogmatic viewpoints where they increasingly refuse to challenge accepted theories—in defiance of the evidence.

The trouble is that while most mathematicians refuse to recognize that the inevitable rise in complexity of mathematical work brings with it a loss of certainty, their viewpoint colors research in areas where mathematics is heavily used, and we may be entering a dark age when it comes to fundamental research.

Now it looks like it's primarily physics, but it could spread to any math dominated field.

And mathematicians become increasingly corrupt as their denial of the truth twists their viewpoints, and leads them to accept more and more than is more convenient than true.

Go back now and please check that link if you haven't and wonder why that data hasn't made headlines, and ask yourself if you care if scientists aren't caring so much about following the data anymore, as they become too involved with at least looking right, than in being right, simply because mathematicians, a relatively small group, refuses to acknowledge that it can make mistakes.

And if that doesn't convince you, ask yourself how a nice guy like me became such a target for posting my viewpoints. It's as if certain people think emotional abuse for opinions like mine is not only the right thing to do, but is what society wants them to do.

That is, these people are rather twisted.