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

Have you heard of the Bogdanov hoax? Anyway, I've written an article for the guide, mainly inspired by your attempts at article writing that fall under the heading of "spacetime". It's called "Why Scientists are Sometimes Incomprehensible". Have a look, see what you think, and tell me which of the reasons applies to why people don't understand your articles. Thanks,

dave

article: A921151

Hello.

2 and 3

What is your knowledge of space-time?

Reality is potential and actual. Space-time is relational.

Reality at resonance is my hypothesis, which may be counterintuitive, especially with the necessary requirement of temporal feedback.

The equations of relativity don't forbid faster than light travel but they do forbid crossing the light speed barrier.

If you are a scientist I will greatfully accept your constructive criticism and feedback. This stochastic resonance can be explained mathematically with Bogoliubov transformations. These Bogoliubov transformations also explain the "Black-Hole Thermodynamics" of Professor Hawking.

Russ

Russ -

you didn't answer any of my questions. Have you heard of the Bogdanov's?

No.

You gave a list on your "Bogdonovos" article.

Four statements.

2. Counterintuitive

3. The difficulty is in the explanation.

I have deleted the article.

Its gone. Closed minds will never understand.

ditto.

Russ

Rusty, rusty, rusty. You didn't have to go and delete the article. And no one's mind was closed. I'm just saying that I'm not a theoretical space-time physicist. If you want to post something, and have it discussed, you need to take into account the background knowledge of your audience.

It seems like your article was geared towards people who already speak the language of theoretical space-time physics. So you should post it to a discussion group that theoretical space-time physicists atttend.

The guide is mainly read by non-scientists. The few scientists that are around try to make sure that all the science that is discussed is accesible to non-scientists. That's what I'm trying to point out - I'm not saying your hypothesis is wrong, just that it is completely incomprensible.

It is very difficult to try to explain science to people who don't have the background, but it is also very rewarding. People at the guide have repeatedly encouraged you to try, with the understanding of how hard it will be. Instead you seem bent on defending the scientific merits of your statement - but these have never been challenged!!! We can't even begin to understand your arguments, how can we challenge them in a debate?

BTW, reason 3 states that the scientist doesn't understand what they're trying to explain. Is that part of the problem?

dave