The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Baez agrees with Nemesis & Al? Hillman wonders.
Replies: 13   Last Post: Dec 4, 2001 1:15 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Tubby Chubbs

Posts: 5
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: Baez agrees with Nemesis & Al? Hillman wonders.
Posted: Nov 30, 2001 8:52 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 18:24:33 GMT, Nemesis <> wrote:

>In article <jTtN7.13923$>,
>"hanson" <> wrote:

>>Is Nemesis and Uncle Al having an influence on the establishment thinking?
>>Seems to me they and folks like them do:

>Not to disparage your post but I am under the impression that Uncle
>Adolf *is* a regurgitating establishment crackpot. I certainly do not
>want to be lumped in with Uncle Adolf, unless of course, like the
>Taliban, he surrenders unconditionally.

>>From: (John Baez)
>>Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
>>Subject: Re: Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity
>>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 03:06:54 +0000 (UTC)
>>Message-ID: <9tpn8e$76u$>

>>> classical Maxwell equations with classical Einstein
>>> equations are theories known to be WRONG...
>>> ...we are trying to get an understanding of the actual
>>> universe we find ourselves in, not just unify two
>>> somewhat obsolete theories.

>>...while Christine Hillman is working in the other direction, by being very
>>busy in trying to invent new verbiage for math so that ever fewer people
>>will be equipped to follow her and like minded mathematicians in what they
>>are trying to say. ---- It's gonna be lonely at the top, Christine.

>Anybody who claims that math explains physics is either a moron or a
>con artist. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the amount of math
>one uses in one's "explanations" of nature is directly proportional to
>one's propensity for deception and ass-kissing, and a lack of
>understanding of what is really going on. Chris Hillman falls into
>that category.
>Unless an explanation can be understood by the average person, you can
>be certain the explainer hasn't got a clue.

I don't understand this.
>I guess this covers the
>majority of the pompous asses who populate the higher echelons of the
>physics community.
>Math only explains math. One does not need math to explain nature.
>It's the other way around.
>Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.