Five million man: proofs of key problems

[questfortruth]

All these works are rejected by many top journals without review:

Riemann Hypothesis
Riemann Hypothesis: New Criterion, Evidence, and One-Page Proof, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0116

Goldbach's Conjecture
Could a New Equivalent Formulation of Goldbach's Conjecture Lead us to the Final Proof?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0115

Abc-Conjecture
One-Page Refutation of Abc-Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0114

Proof of Poincare Conjecture and refutation of Perelman's proof:
A More Elegant Proof of Poincare Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0113

Also published in
What are the caps in the proof of Poincare Conjecture and does the insertion of caps into initial manifold preserve homeomorphism?

Explanation of Dark Matter
Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

 

[Altfish]

All these works are rejected by many top journals without review:

Riemann Hypothesis Riemann Hypothesis: New Criterion, Evidence, and One-Page Proof, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0116

Goldbach's Conjecture Could a New Equivalent Formulation of Goldbach's Conjecture Lead us to the Final Proof?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0115

Abc-Conjecture One-Page Refutation of Abc-Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0114

Proof of Poincare Conjecture and refutation of Perelman's proof:
A More Elegant Proof of Poincare Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0113

Also published in
What are the caps in the proof of Poincare Conjecture and does the insertion of caps into initial manifold preserve homeomorphism?

Explanation of Dark Matter
Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

Physicist Gerard 't Hooft writes, "When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against that are considerable".

 

[questfortruth]

Physicist Gerard 't Hooft writes, "When a paper is published in viXra, it is usually a sign that it is not likely to contain acceptable results. It may, but the odds against that are considerable".

Give me goodwill and benefit of the doubt. How many Einsteins were in 1905? Just one.

 

[Polymath257]

All these works are rejected by many top journals without review:

Riemann Hypothesis
Riemann Hypothesis: New Criterion, Evidence, and One-Page Proof, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0116

Goldbach's Conjecture
Could a New Equivalent Formulation of Goldbach's Conjecture Lead us to the Final Proof?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0115

Abc-Conjecture
One-Page Refutation of Abc-Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0114

Proof of Poincare Conjecture and refutation of Perelman's proof:
A More Elegant Proof of Poincare Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0113

Also published in
What are the caps in the proof of Poincare Conjecture and does the insertion of caps into initial manifold preserve homeomorphism?

Explanation of Dark Matter
Gravity Law Without Universalism is Solving Many Tasks, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2007.0112

Well, it is clear why those papers were rejected by so many places.

 

[Altfish]

Give me goodwill and benefit of the doubt. How many Einsteins were in 1905? Just one.

You cannot accuse science of not being doubtful; good scientists are careful and publish expecting to be criticised and corrected.
Science changes as more knowledge is discovered.

When does religion change?

 

[questfortruth]

publish expecting to be criticised and corrected.

I repeat again: papers were rejected without review.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well, it is clear why those papers were rejected by so many places.

Gotta love how the author actually tells people that it's a "bad attitude" to try to find mistakes in his work.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Give me goodwill and benefit of the doubt. How many Einsteins were in 1905? Just one.

Do you see you self as the New Einstein?

 

[Left Coast]

Thanks for that.

Was there someone in particular that you were aiming this thread at?

I had asked questfortruth if he would share the full text of the papers he's submitted that were rejected by various journals (he felt unfairly so, in a previous thread). I actually appreciate that he shared the full texts, because it makes it more clear why these journals rightly rejected his papers.

 

[Left Coast]

I repeat again: papers were rejected without review.

The fact that papers weren't formally reviewed doesn't mean no one read any part of them. They were likely rejected outright (ie without formal review) because even quickly perusing the papers makes their errors (even in grammar) obvious.

 

[questfortruth]

makes their errors (even in grammar) obvious.

Style and text were checked by a respectful PhD from Tartu University.

doesn't mean no one read any part of them.

You do not know. Perhaps no one read a single line.

 

[Left Coast]

Style and text were checked by a respectful PhD from Tartu University.

That appears to be a University in Estonia. Was the paper originally written in another language and then translated to English?

You do not know. Perhaps no one read a single line.

I understand how peer review works, in terms of the general process. Why do you think a journal would reject your papers without reading a single line? Why would multiple journals do so?

 

[Polymath257]

I repeat again: papers were rejected without review.

A casual glance is quite enough to reject them.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I had asked questfortruth if he would share the full text of the papers he's submitted that were rejected by various journals (he felt unfairly so, in a previous thread). I actually appreciate that he shared the full texts, because it makes it more clear why these journals rightly rejected his papers.

The fact that papers weren't formally reviewed doesn't mean no one read any part of them. They were likely rejected outright (ie without formal review) because even quickly perusing the papers makes their errors (even in grammar) obvious.

I thought so, but it just seemed odd as a new thread OP, rather than a response in an ongoing thread. I thought perhaps @Altfish had hit the wrong button while sending.

 

[Polymath257]

Style and text were checked by a respectful PhD from Tartu University.


You do not know. Perhaps no one read a single line.

I did. And if I was the editor, I would have rejected them summarily. If I were a referee, I would let the editor know they weren't even worthy of being read.

In all of them, trivial logical errors appear once you get past the diatribe about people looking for problems (yes, that is the whole point of a referee and editor).

 

[Altfish]

I repeat again: papers were rejected without review.

BUT, papers do get rejected. If I were to write a paper on (say) Prime Numbers in Nature, it would be rejected and rightly so ... because I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[questfortruth]

Why do you think a journal would reject your papers without reading a single line? Why would multiple journals do so?

They are not obligated to have goodwill. They are legal, it is enough.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You cannot accuse science of not being doubtful; good scientists are careful and publish expecting to be criticised and corrected.
Science changes as more knowledge is discovered.

When does religion change?

Never. Religion is as staple as gravity. It being totality single and one religion, it is always exactly the same over all time and all places and it has never changed. Now read a paper on that and submit it and see how far you get.

You are aware of this, right?
religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions

 

[Altfish]

Never. Religion is as staple as gravity. It being totality single and one religion, it is always exactly the same over all time and all places and it has never changed. Now read a paper on that and submit it and see how far you get.

You are aware of this, right?
religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions

Change is good. We used to have steam engines, now we have high speed electric train. That is advancement. Religion stagnates.

Papers about religion are few because science doesn't accept 'magic'; it needs explanations, repeatability, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Change is good. We used to have steam engines, now we have high speed electric train. That is advancement. Religion stagnates.

Papers about religion are few because science doesn't accept 'magic'; it needs explanations, repeatability, etc.

Well, religion is not science, the study of religion can be science, but religion as such do change. Or do you deny that religion changes at all?