Your idea of "A New Kind of Science" received a lot of publicity when it first came out, but doesn't seem to have really caught on in the years since. Is the idea wrong, or has the rest of the science world simply not caught up with you? Do you know of any serious scientific investigations or developments that have resulted from it so far?
In comparison, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity took a few decades to find its first experimental proof, and to eventually be fully accepted by science. Do you see that sort of process occurring with your idea, or is it dying on the vine?
As a follow-up, A New Kind of Science got a lot of publicity for not citing crap, but your summary makes it sound like 30,000 citations from other people is a big deal. (Okay, it's more than me, but there are plenty of senior people with that many citations.) Do you feel bad about this disparity in attribution of credit?
In comparison, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity took a few decades to find its first experimental proof
What are you talking about? General Relativity. Forumulated 1915. Light found to bend in the Sun's gravitational field 1919. Special Relativity's postulates were based on the failure of the Michelson Morley Experiement
Sorry it I was a little bit off. My apologies to you and all the other Anonymous Cowards of the universe. I wrote that stuff from memory based on some TV shows I saw. Also, please note that I specifically referenced the Special Theory of Relativity, which Wikipedia indicates was published in 1905. So relative to your information, perhaps I should have said "decade" rather than "decades". Again, I apologize.
Regardless of your anonymous and cowardly nitpicking, my basic point remains that no "new kind of
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging
their prejudices."
-- William James
A New Kind of Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Your idea of "A New Kind of Science" received a lot of publicity when it first came out, but doesn't seem to have really caught on in the years since. Is the idea wrong, or has the rest of the science world simply not caught up with you? Do you know of any serious scientific investigations or developments that have resulted from it so far?
In comparison, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity took a few decades to find its first experimental proof, and to eventually be fully accepted by science. Do you see that sort of process occurring with your idea, or is it dying on the vine?
Re: (Score:0)
As a follow-up, A New Kind of Science got a lot of publicity for not citing crap, but your summary makes it sound like 30,000 citations from other people is a big deal. (Okay, it's more than me, but there are plenty of senior people with that many citations.) Do you feel bad about this disparity in attribution of credit?
Re: (Score:0)
In comparison, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity took a few decades to find its first experimental proof
What are you talking about? General Relativity. Forumulated 1915. Light found to bend in the Sun's gravitational field 1919.
Special Relativity's postulates were based on the failure of the Michelson Morley Experiement
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Fizeau
By 1915 Einstein was famous and the theory was well accepted by the greater scientific community.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry it I was a little bit off. My apologies to you and all the other Anonymous Cowards of the universe. I wrote that stuff from memory based on some TV shows I saw. Also, please note that I specifically referenced the Special Theory of Relativity, which Wikipedia indicates was published in 1905. So relative to your information, perhaps I should have said "decade" rather than "decades". Again, I apologize.
Regardless of your anonymous and cowardly nitpicking, my basic point remains that no "new kind of