3 ms·
First: it's nice to give arXiv links to the abstract/metadata page rather than straight to the PDF: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2720 http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.272
by Steuard 11y ago
First: it's nice to give arXiv links to the abstract/metadata page rather than straight to the PDF: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2720 http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2720
Second, this paper is from 2012.
And third, who is this guy? A quick Google search suggests that he's a college dropout who somehow made a big media splash in 2003 after announcing that he had a radical new theory of time, but has had zero impact on the actual physics community. Why is this paper worth our time?
- pervycreeper 11y ago>Why is this paper worth our time? It's not, it's obvious crankery.
- delhanty 11y agoThe paper must have been endorsed by an arXiv endorser: http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement Who the endorser is doesn't seem to be public though.
- compactmani 11y agoIt's bogus and poorly written. I'm not sure why this is even here.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- 0xFFC 11y agoFirst: thank you I didn't know that.Sadly I couldn't correct it. Second: Should I mention it in title ? Third: I didn't know that either. thank you. About worthiness of your time , I think does not come any harm from reading if it not become belief.