h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I need to clarify myself - I think it would be better to start a conversation that refers to this conversation here once your article gets edited/accepted (or even if it doesn't, which I can't imagine it wouldn't). But, since this conversation probably won't remain here for long (since the article has apparently been all but deleted), it's a moot point - leave this crap out of your article is my vote.

I feel the danger of this all sliding into a rant-n-rave despite the incredible patience everyone has shown with Russell, so I won't say anything further about what I might personally think of his scientific knowledge or methods of communicating it. I think I'm up to now with that.

- JD

ahh, I see, well put. This conversation should be saved; is there anyway of doing that other than the good old "copy & paste"?

dave

I think this conversation will only be removed from PR, but will remain under the Entry. I am not sure if this Entry can be removed forever without action of the Italics.

In any case I have copy-pasted it already.

To Russ: Sorry that we're all BOZOS, it must be a very frustrating thing for you, to live in a place where the only intelligent person is you... If you do find out the Grand Unified Field Theory, please - in order to spare you from more frustration - let someone else explain it to us.

HELL

I want to say a few words in support of my unjustly maligned fellow peer reviewers
I'm no bozo: I'm a fully trained solid state chemist with the requisite research qualifications who understands mathematics and physics. And after having read this article (its original version) I can honestly say:
(a) I have absolutely no comprehension of what the author means
(b) The author obviously has no intention of simplifying the concepts involved so others can understand it and comment upon it with any degree of authority, which probably shows....
(c) that when simplified, it boils down to a load of tommyrot.

Does anybody want to second a move to the Last Bus Shelter?

solid state? p-chemist here!

Seconding anything you want. Pity they don't have the sinbin anymore.

HELL

cheers on that, I've tried to understand this but it's like wadding through mud. The words chosen are deliberately obtuse. It's no fun to read when you have to spend 10 minutes looking up the definition of every other word, and then that definition turns out to be something incredibly obvious (HELL's example diffeomorphism = map). This is a topic which is very exciting and to have someone lure you in with the title and then throw up a brick wall in your face is extremely frustrating and aggravating.

dave

Agreed, but just to be pedantic, a diffeomorphism is not exactly the same as a map. It is a map with an inverse, with both the map and its inverse being smooth (differentiable infinitely many times). Even knowing most of the terms the article uses though, it doesn't make much sense.

hmm, my bad. *glad to have learned the real meaning* Thanks, HenryS

Good grief, I'm surrounded by chemists!

I'm just a plain ol' nukuler enguneer myself, but I rub shoulders with lots of chemists - truth be told, I admire 'em all. Not too much theoretical physicists in my particular area of work, but my best friend and a certain lady that I like to hang out with a lot are theoretical physicists doing things that make my mind wilt - even so, they are all capable of explaining their work to me, given enough time and patience of course.

However, the article here and its author seem to have been merely confusing for confusion's sake. I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because science is confusing doesn't mean that anything confusing is science - which is what we've all said here, so 'nuff said.

I see this is back in the article itself now, and not in the PR forum.


- JD

Hate to go OT, but gotta do it. Shouldn't this article be referenced by the article on nothing now?

Did anyone second the move to the bus shelter yet? I think Hell did...

Consider it thirded.

Do we have the original handy? Otherwise it's going look a bit daft linking to a full stop. I could always link to the thread.

The bus has left: I posted a link to the conversation forum.

This is a spoof. I can say no more. I can only see that it was wrote to show off!

However, I was impressed by one point: -

'Oh yes, here is a great link that really helpd to understand the absolute metric and the "reverse" universe:

http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm

...'

This is a link to an excellent site that I have been investigating, and the book is one I started reading a few weeks ago. It's wrote by a brilliant, intelligent individual who has seemingly passed into ignominity. Please let me remedy this by lending a hand with my entry, if you would be so kind.

And I'm doing quantum mechanics and discrete maths II next term, so perhaps I'll be better placed to understand this strange convolution then?

- Jordan