From: mike99 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Aug 01 2003 - 14:13:21 MDT
I'm sorry to have to say this, but there is nothing about this work that is
"groundbreaking" if, by that term, one means both scientifically valid and
revolutionary. What is scientifically valid in this paper (written by "Peter
Lynds, a 27 year old broadcasting school tutor from Wellington, New
Zealand") is not revolutionary, and what is revoutionary is not
Most of the supportive quotes on the website from "prominent scientists" are
one or two-word snippets that can be extremely misleading when taken out of
context. The only extended quote there is not at all supportive. From the
"...an earlier referee had a different opinion of the controversial paper.
"I have only read the first two sections as it is clear that the author's
arguments are based on profound ignorance or misunderstanding of basic
analysis and calculus. I'm afraid I am unwilling to waste any time reading
further, and recommend terminal rejection."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Tyrone
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:08 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: "Ground-breaking work in understanding of time"
> "A bold paper which has highly impressed some of the world's top
> and been published in the August issue of Foundations of Physics Letters,
> seems set to change the way we think about the nature of time and its
> relationship to motion and classical and quantum mechanics."
> Among other things, it presents a resolution to Zeno's paradox. It's also
> head-slappingly simple in concept, though apparently abstract and
> counterintuitive enough that it took this long to surface.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT