Einstein mistake is found

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... You hate me now because of my faith?

Of course not - I don't hate anyone. It's questions like that which make me wonder about your thought processes...

Please do not use feelings while rejecting the paper. How one can judge a paper based on own feelings?! Better base it on LOGIC.

I haven't rejected or judged the paper - because parts of it are incoherent to me, i.e. lacking in discernable logic, so I can't make enough sense of it to judge it. Any feelings I have about it are a result of that.

However, it's possible that it's a language problem, which is why I suggested a translator might be helpful.

You claim to have answered the Milennium Prize for proving or disproving the existence & smoothness, or breakdown, of Navier Stokes solutions for all starting points & all moments in time, so why don't you submit a claim to the CMI prize committee?

 

[sfs]

I understand that since I am not a doctor of science, I have no chance of being published in high-profile journal (indexed in current contents).

You don't need a PhD to be published -- I've known more than one scientist who published major papers without one. I suspect an editor wouldn't even read past the title of your paper as it stands, however.

 

[joinfree]

You don't need a PhD to be published -- I've known more than one scientist who published major papers without one. I suspect an editor wouldn't even read past the title of your paper as it stands, however.

But you are not PhD. And guess how many elite papers you have? 0.000

 

[joinfree]

You claim to have answered the Milennium Prize for proving or disproving the existence & smoothness, or breakdown, of Navier Stokes solutions for all starting points & all moments in time, so why don't you submit a claim to the CMI prize committee?

I am not an insider in Scientific Community. I am not Grisha Perelman, who has published a draft in arXiv, which immediately got the Prize. I am a poor, sick pleb. So, I must undergo the CMI prize committee rules: paper must be published in a high profile, well recognized and mathematical (not physical!) peer-review journal, and after that during 5 years it must withstand all criticism, which is impossible for a pleb, because Scientific Scepticism is the method of Science: it is presumption of guilt.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not an insider in Scientific Community. I am not Grisha Perelman, who has published a draft in arXiv, which immediately got the Prize. I am a poor, sick pleb. So, I must undergo the CMI prize committee rules: paper must be published in a high profile, well recognized and mathematical (not physical!) peer-review journal, and after that during 5 years it must withstand all criticism, which is impossible for a pleb, because Scientific Scepticism is the method of Science: it is presumption of guilt.

I think your problem getting it published is that its very bad and not scientific, not that you are an "outsider".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am not an insider in Scientific Community. I am not Grisha Perelman, who has published a draft in arXiv, which immediately got the Prize. I am a poor, sick pleb. So, I must undergo the CMI prize committee rules: paper must be published in a high profile, well recognized and mathematical (not physical!) peer-review journal, and after that during 5 years it must withstand all criticism, which is impossible for a pleb, because Scientific Scepticism is the method of Science: it is presumption of guilt.

If your paper is any good, and really has the proof you claim, being an outsider won't matter. A large percentage of papers from amateur physicists & mathematicians are rejected simply because they're nonsense or contain serious errors. If you don't think your paper can withstand criticism, that suggests you know it's weak and/or doesn't solve the problem.

 

[sfs]

But you are not PhD. And guess how many elite papers you have? 0.000

You need to hone your guessing skills. I have a PhD in experimental particle physics, a couple of dozen genetics papers in elite journals, and some number of physics papers in elite journals that I can't be bothered to figure out.

 

[joinfree]

You need to hone your guessing skills. I have a PhD in experimental particle physics, a couple of dozen genetics papers in elite journals, and some number of physics papers in elite journals that I can't be bothered to figure out.

Why don't you love and respect me then? If you are such a good scientist? I have paper. I have results. Why do you have no time to be my supervisor?

 

[sfs]

Why don't you love and respect me then?

Because you have given me no reason to love or respect you.

I have paper. I have results.

Lots of people have papers. Millions of papers are published every year.

Why do you have no time to be my supervisor?

I'm a geneticist and I don't take students.

 

[joinfree]

Because you have given me no reason to love or respect you.

Lots of people have papers. Millions of papers are published every year.

I'm a geneticist and I don't take students.

1. Jesus loves me. So, take His example.

"Must be a reason, why I am taking example of You"

2. I have paper about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam. Care to look?

 

[joinfree]

Because you have given me no reason to love or respect you.

Lots of people have papers. Millions of papers are published every year.

I'm a geneticist and I don't take students.

Please answer the latter comment. Be best.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hello, friends, in the file is shown, that body, while falling into Black Hole vanishes without ever reaching central singularity. Or what ever singularity: singular state inside body is reached without outside singularity! It can't be. Mistake of Einstein? Who wonna be my science supervisor?

It was Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 derived the Schwarzschild metric. This shows that a black hole has an event horizon. This is not an "outside singularity" because a coordinate change removes it.
Einstein did not create the concept of a naked singularity.

A "California Wildfires and 9/11 similarity..." PDF with lots of ignorant gibberish does not show anything about the physics of general relativity or black holes.

Confusion about what a reference is and some of them are stupid. A reference in a scientific paper such as [99] is a reference to a single item in the scientific literature such as a paper or textbook. They are not notes about the current paper. Those belong in footnotes at the bottom of the page. Stupid references to ""Free Energy Machine", "Star Trek, Skin of Evil", "Ace Ventura...", "Ghost (1990)", etc.

ETA: The author Dmitri Martila is from Estonia so English as a second language explains some of the gibberish. But Martila has an M. Sc. in theoretical physics so must know the basics of scientific papers, e.g. how to write a citation and what science is (it is not movies or free energy cranks)! An M. Sc. in theoretical physics does explain why some of the gibberish looks like theoretical physics.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As far as I can see, the PDF is really ignorant about the Clay Mathematics Institute and the Navier–Stokes Equation Problem. The problem is solved with a proof of one of 4 specific statements as in the PDF on that page. None are his "inconsistency" assertion. The first 2 statements are that there exist smooth functions given certain conditions, the other 2 are that there are no solutions given certain conditions.

Of course, if there was a real solution in the PDF, the author would also have a million dollars!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It was Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 derived the Schwarzschild metric. This shows that a black hole has an event horizon. This is not an "outside singularity" because a coordinate change removes it.
Einstein did not create the concept of a naked singularity.

A "California Wildfires and 9/11 similarity..." PDF with lots of ignorant gibberish does not show anything about the physics of general relativity or black holes.

Confusion about what a reference is and some of them are stupid. A reference in a scientific paper such as [99] is a reference to a single item in the scientific literature such as a paper or textbook. They are not notes about the current paper. Those belong in footnotes at the bottom of the page. Stupid references to ""Free Energy Machine", "Star Trek, Skin of Evil", "Ace Ventura...", "Ghost (1990)", etc.

ETA: The author Dmitri Martila is from Estonia so English as a second language explains some of the gibberish. But Martila has an M. Sc. in theoretical physics so must know the basics of scientific papers, e.g. how to write a citation and what science is (it is not movies or free energy cranks)! An M. Sc. in theoretical physics does explain why some of the gibberish looks like theoretical physics.

The random disconnected elements in the paper suggest disordered thinking; some of the posts give that impression too.

 

[usexpat97]

So what if Einstein made mistakes. Copernicus said all the planets have circular orbits around the sun: not the sun around the earth. Kepler came along and said that is wrong: the orbits are elliptical. So?? Science moves forward, and these human beings were all stepping stones along the way.