I recently finshed reading a book about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, called the Shackles of Conviction by James R Meyer and I was knocked sideways by it. although it is a novel, it explains Godel's proof better than any other explanation I have ever seen. But the astonishing thing is that the book also pinpoints exactly where there is a flaw in the proof.
Yes, like you, I thought that Meyer had to be wrong. So I looked at his website www.jamesrmeyer.com and found a fully technical paper on Godel's theorem. I couldn't see anything wrong with Meyer's paper and I have completly changed my opinion on Godel's proof. Meyer's stuff is not the ramblings of some freak - he really knows Godel's proof inside out.
Meyer says that no-one has been able to find an error in his paper. I showed it to a couple of friends and they couldn't see anything wrong with Meyer's argument either. So is there anyone there who can find anything wrong with Meyer's argument? And if no-one can find anything wrong with Meyer's argument, doesn't that mean that he is right and Godel was wrong?