[Fis] Marni Sheppeard

[Alex Hankey]

Thanks for all this, Lou. I
had no idea that you have
had such a Turbulent Career

On Sun, 26 Jan, 2025, 12:28 Louis Kauffman, <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Folks,
> It may help to see preon models in a slide show summarizing Lambek and to
> see the Sundance-Bilson Thompson paper.
> The main thing we did recently was realize a dictionary between Lambek and
> Sundance, and so found some corrections to Sundance. Long ago, we were
> looking prematurely at the topology inherent in Sundance’s braids.
> This slide show of mine shows how the ideas weave together. You can
> compare this with the more technical papers.
> The last part about CPT invariance is still in a dream state.
> Luke has other corrections and ways to think about this.
>
> Marni Sheppard had good insights about it as you can find on Vixra.
> She worked with my friend Louis Crane. I never did meet her and do not
> know about her difficulties.
> There is a good YouTube with David Chester that talks about her work.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FFPDYr7p3Y__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WUItX_Jk2Oz7TpOYvjOhdpf0rg4m6734T-HKBm-t5vyKVvy9I-SBgivvJ0FyzmReJyy21xA4CoXVGe8Tk46mNA$ 
>
> The part that astonishes me is Lambek.
> He had in mind to use quaternions (a natural inclination here and even
> octonions are a natural inclination).
> But he just took Harari and Shupe’s models and wrote 4-diml vectors for
> each particle, and did it so that all the particle interactions correspond
> to additions of the form A + B = C + D of vectors! What the heck? Some
> things like helicity are left out, but some core of elementary particle
> interaction is just addition of vectors in four-space. Simple, but not
> simple enough.
> Some deeper simplicity (Stu maybe your autocatalytics will inform this) is
> needed.
>
> Another source related to this is the work of Peter Rowlands. Find and
> examine his book “From Zero to Infinity” to see his original approach to
> the Dirac equation and a Clifford algebraic / Doubled Quaternion approach
> to elementary particles.
>
> Ok.
> Now the matter of arXiv and Vixra and all the rest.
> Here’s my story.
> After various educational adventures and struggles (MIT, then Princeton) I
> left Princeton still working on my mathematics thesis and took job at
> University of Illinois at Chicago (Circle Campus then, UIC now) in January
> 1971. Landin, the dept chair said since I was starting in mid term he’d
> have to give me the dregs to teach. The dregs (to him) was a math for
> liberal arts students course (Math 115) that no one wanted to teach. This
> course saved me in that I found that I could really enjoy teaching
> particularly if one could discuss ideas. I think that a liberal arts course
> needed discussion of ideas was the reason why it was regarded as the dregs.
> (Some later courses really were the dregs - 150 people, with 50 of them up
> in the back of the lecture hall reading newspapers and rolling the
> occasional pop - bottle down the steps. Ah yes.) Anyway, between that and
> other factors, the thesis did write itself and I was able to keep that job.
> In fact that job and going up academic ranks in that job is the only job I
> ever had. Visits here and there but that was the job all the way to
> retirement and a fruitful visit to Siberia as the head of a grant in
> Akademgorodok, Novosibirsk. (And we’re not likely to find our way back to
> that enlightened spot anytime soon.)
>
> But somewhere around 1974 I found Laws of Form in a book store and not
> long after that met Swatez and Solzman holding a seminar weekly on LoF. You
> should understand that Swatez has been holding LoF since that time and he
> was the founder of that seminar in Chicago.
> Prior to meeting them I was so enthusiastic about LoF that I gave a
> seminar in our dept about it. This was an eye opener. Do you find LoF
> disturbing? Sure you do, but you (reading this) are probably not a
> professional mathematician, imagining that your subject has foundations.
> And as I have said here, to see how it might be possible to actually look
> at the distinctions that underpin whatever you do, will lead you to
> question everything and not just take you down to the accepted formulations
> of set theory… Well certain people in the room sensed that instantly and
> did their best to make a farce out of it. Which of course it is. Or a game.
> You take on the club rules and play the game. It is a choice. But anyway,
> the weekly LoF seminar went on and we met Heinz von Foerster over the
> phone, and we told him we were working on LoF. And he laughed in such a way
> that I can hear it to this day, ringing in the void. And after that I had
> to superimpose various topology and various LoF and find places where this
> could be expressed.
>
> So after that I’m in a predicament somewhat like what Luke is describing,
> even though I am in a “normal” academic situation.
> This led me off to cybernetics conferences and ANPA (the Alternative
> Natural Philosophy Association) and articles in journals the mathematicians
> would never know, and correspondence with characters like
> Alex Comfort, Noyes, Kilmister, Varela, Pask, Pedretti, Glanville.
>
> Publication barriers depend on the medium. Mathematics journals just want
> the indicative forms, no ideas (or hide them in the depths of the proofs
> since mathematicians like to ferret them out. Or if you must talk about
> ideas, make sure they are laced with formalisms and proofs). Other places
> like Kybernetes love ideas but do not handle subtle formalisms. The ArXiv
> is supposed to be a place where (if you have the standard credentials) you
> can place research to be reviewed by others no questions asked. But it is
> not so. The ArXiv is run by opinionated physicists and so if you are doing
> physics they can be upset if your work is upsetting applecarts. And if you
> do not have the standard academic credentials than you can’t put your work
> on arXiv. Hence Vixra was born. Luke has explained the problem with Vixra,
> but at least it is there. Research Gate is similar to Vixra but better
> known.
>
> I have a very specific complaint about the ArXiv. They use robots to check
> for plagiarism. Now nobody condones plagiarism.
> But what is wrong with some self-plagiarism? The robot finds this and the
> managers at the arXiv tell you that a paper in such a condition cannot be
> at a stage that is publishable on ArXiv, please rewrite and resubmit. So we
> become good at permuting our own texts so that a robot does not recognize
> them. Is this a reasonable occupation? Maybe one of you could write a
> program to do this job.
>
> Peer review seemed like a good idea to some. And surely comments by
> colleagues should be useful. The problem is that an actual sensitive
> reading is very hard to get. Whoever reads it, if it is NEW, will usually
> complain about it not fitting the right forms. In mathematics the exception
> is new mathematics written in a completely orthodox and very precise manner.
> This can happen. This is what gets the best press among mathematicians. We
> should not complain about this. But if you have gone and done a thing that
> involves making up new language from scratch, well … that can be good but
> you have to teach it to some people and get a conversational domain going.
>
> A good example of this is Feynman and his diagrams. He could not get them
> across to Bohr and the others at the Shelter Island Conference. But he told
> everyone about them and Dyson listened, and figured out how they were
> related to Schwinger and were effective in solving lots of problems. And
> the diagrams took off.
> And by 1965 Feyman got a Nobel prize. This must have surprised even Dyson,
> for Dyson wrote a summary article on Quantum Electrodynamics in 1952 for
> Physics Today, and therein he says the field was invented/discovered by
> Schwinger, Tomonaga and … others. Feynman’s name does not appear in the
> article. And this was after Dyson had deciphered the connections. But those
> connections took off beyond his wildest dreams. (See the most recent issue
> of Physics Today for a reprint of the Dyson article.)
>
> I don’t have specific advice about publishing except that there is no
> point in going down empty corridors. Books can be published on viewpoints
> that journals will not take. Eventually someone will see what it is that
> you are saying, if you keep saying it.
> Best,
> Lou
>
> On Jan 25, 2025, at 11:04 PM, Walter Johnston <
> williampatonmalcolm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Luke and Louis,
> Thank you for this excellent portrait.
> Painted in bold colour to simplify this elephant in the library.
> Preons would be a nightmare for medical practitioners. Would bring the
> wrong sort of attention to existing pathogens and health practices. What is
> a preon or bacteria or virus ?  What is PCR  ?
> Really ?
> Cooperation....understanding....debate !
> Where are these ?
> Louis presents it well.
> "Frustrating Silence"
> IGNORANCE IS THE VIRTUE.
> Children are bemused in a weird room within the endless chain of
> connecting rooms in "ALICES WONDERLAND".
> Its no fairy story.
> The entire world is in "WONDERLAND".
> Guarded by satelites.
> Thousands of them surrounding the globe.
> Controlled so it seems (as are we ourselves) by one guy.
> WOW !
> What a feat !
> How did one man do this ?
> Does he know about preons ?
> What about the other stuff !
> The other pathogens  !
> All this stuff circling WONDERLAND.
> SO QUIETLY.
> SECRETLY.
> Muted .
> Bless
> .
> .
>
>
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2025, 08:48 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net
> 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!WUItX_Jk2Oz7TpOYvjOhdpf0rg4m6734T-HKBm-t5vyKVvy9I-SBgivvJ0FyzmReJyy21xA4CoXVGe98daqQzA$ 
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marni-Sheppeard__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WUItX_Jk2Oz7TpOYvjOhdpf0rg4m6734T-HKBm-t5vyKVvy9I-SBgivvJ0FyzmReJyy21xA4CoXVGe-2YAx5CQ$ 
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250127/9120e4b6/attachment-0001.html>