I love this professor. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is very general and very vague. Remember that horrible discussion we had on Newton's cradle? Wasted my life.
He should take the Professors advice and quit posting his theory on the net. Maybe we could refer all the cranks to this Professor?
I will never think anyone has a TOE, but how do you conclude prompt rejection implies the paper is false?
What I find amusing about this 'TOE' is that I can't recall a single post by hansda which was scientifically correct in any way.
Your prediction is wrong. After developing this theory, I made one invention which is published in a patent journal. After that i developed another 'theory on money-flow' for which i obtained copyright. The extract of this theory can be seen in the net.
Where? I found this: http://discuss.tigweb.org/thread/443645/theory-of-money-flow The above link leads to an error 404.
YES you are right. I haven't yet posted the 'mathematical proof' for my theory in this forum. First i developed this theory, then i developed the mathematical proof for it. Then i consulted the professor for next steps. Its a general theory. So, i tried to define "action" and "technique" in a general way to cover 'any action' by this theory. May be my explanations also were not very clear. That was my first attempt to publish in a peer-review journal. That alphanumeric code to view online status of my paper was not automatic. That code was provided to me after some days of my submission of paper in a separate mail from them. YES they were polite. I dont think so. He advised me to submit my work in a peer-review journal and gave me two references, Physical Review A was one of them.
Geeze Hansda, I am really embarrassed for you. Why don't you try out for a professional football team it would amount to the same thing you are doing here.
Thats why i haven't yet posted the mathematical proof for my theory here in this forum, thinking it may not be safe to do so as per the Professor's advice.
This is what troubles me. Scientific theories are not mathematically proved. They are tested by experiment. If you have a statement that is mathematically proved, then it will be true regardless of what experiments say. If something is true regardless of what experiments say, then it is not a scientific theory. This doesn't mean that all research in science has to be a new theory or calculating predictions of an existing theory. For instance, you can take an existing theory or a large class of theories and reformulate it/them in an interesting way (Lagrange machanics is an example of this, for instance). But if you do that it is not enough to show that your reformulation is correct. It also falls on you to motivate it: you have to explain why what you are doing is actually useful and interesting and how it adds new insight that wasn't obvious before. I can only go by what you've posted here, but it doesn't sound like you have anything that stands a chance of being accepted by a reputable physics journal. By the sound of things, you have a "theory" that is so vague and general that you could claim it applies to just about anything. In fact, following your claim that you have "mathematically proved" this theory, it doesn't sound like you have anything that could be considered a scientific theory at all. And? That's normal. The point is, you get the accession code before your manuscript has gone through any sort of review. Well, you submitted to Physical Review A (and if I recall correctly, it got transferred to Physical Review E). What did the editor and referees say?
