[Fis] Marni Sheppeard

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Brian,
When I present a piece of thoroughly out-of-the-box
thinking to an academic journal, I get 3 kinds of review.
Brilliant, Publish it!
This is rubbish, reject it!
And the Only useful kind:
This is interesting, but the author should clarify
what he means in the following paras / sections.
The last can be hell to go through and comply with,
but it is the only one that is really useful in trying
to polish a raw gem!
All best wishes,
Alex


On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 at 14:24, Prof. Brian J Ford <mail at brianjford.com>
wrote:

> As I mentioned in my most recent book, peer review is the greatest
> obstacle to conceptual innovation known to science.
>
> We independent researchers must find ways past the process; you're
> unlikely to get through it
>
> Brian J Ford
>
>
> On 25.01.2025 08:48, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, January 18, 2025, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Luke,
> > Thank you for your Rishon papers.
> > I have been working in a different way on this via Bilson Thompson and
> then Rishons with the Lambek work as intermediary.
> > See this recent paper by us (PreonsLambekHelons2501.03260v1.pdf). You
> will find this on ArXiv and ResearchGate.
>
> the benefits of working with others is clarity and a form
> of pre-review long before peer-review. if the concept does
> not pass muster with the co-authors then the reviewers are
> highly unlikely to accept it. the work is of better quality
> as a result, and likely to be continued with followup
> collaboration due to the social interaction and resultant
> endorphins and satisfaction brought about by each participant's
> mesolimbic dopamine system (put biochemically!)
>
> as an independent researcher i have had no such help in any
> way shape or form, for the entire duration of the development
> of the ERM - since 1986. i found this to be very common,
> having taken to online forums that discussed "alternative"
> particle physics theories about 10 years ago, and found
> overloaded people working full-time jobs who were attempting
> to effectively run a second parallel long-term full-time
> role as a mathematician.
>
> these people welcomed if not craved the opportunity to discuss
> their own work. but, sadly and frequently, the discussions (if
> public online) often deteriorated as the other participants
> would require far too much time - weeks if not months - to
> "catch up" with any one given individuals' "personal" theory.
>
> i myself had private discussions go rapidly downhill as well
> with people who were pursuing a personal theory, in one case
> because they only used a casio hand-held calculator for all
> computation, and i tried unsuccessfully to introduce them to
> the python programming language.
>
> another independent researcher i know is an outlier, who
> remarkably has been successful in publishing in peer-reviewed
> journals, and his long-term success i believe may be attributed
> to him keeping himself both mentally stable, if not very
> contented and likely very happy, by having an extensive family
> life as a fully-retired - jewish - grandfather.
>
> but his case is the exception to the general rule. most of
> the independent individuals - including de Vries - learn
> *very quickly* that interacting with other "outsiders"
> (others also not supported by financing through an accredited
> Academic Institution) is counter-productive due to the extreme
> noise-to-signal ratio of being forced to use online forums
> where even if there are Moderators, the Moderators tend to
> be ignorant, prejudiced and biased.
>
> i have just learned that, tragically, Marni Shepeard, also
> an independent researcher, whose brilliant work was
> unintentionally claimed by another person who happened to
> follow the exact same mathematical path... except they were
> well-established in Academia and got their version peer-reviewed
> and published in a credible journal where Marni's 140+ page
> prior art was *not recognised let alone referenced*... went mountaineering
> and died.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://explorersweb.com/mountaineer-goes-missing-again-in-the-same-place/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U7F3AOe18y1hjkXWGvShu5aA74s4uZTtFBAKoslDK3kzvO6ceIU59U8MdUFQyfZbutdiv4rqNJIRO0Q9eJNinA$ 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marni-Sheppeard__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!U7F3AOe18y1hjkXWGvShu5aA74s4uZTtFBAKoslDK3kzvO6ceIU59U8MdUFQyfZbutdiv4rqNJIRO0QMl2AnPQ$ 
>
> from what i recall, when i read her work over 10 years ago,
> Marni derived from first principles the mathematics of
> CKM Matrices and the equivalent Neutrino matrices through
> the use of complex symmetrical geometric shapes.
>
> i am angry at the loss of her life.
>
> l.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ---
> geometry: without it life is pointless
> the fibonacci series: easy as 1 1 2 3
>
>

-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) DSc. (Hon Causa) Professor Emeritus
of Biology,
MIT World Peace University,
124 Paud Road, Pune, MA 411038
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
WhatsApp: as for Mobile, India
_________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250125/14b04889/attachment.html>