Does this look like pseudoscience to you fellows?

 

http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0020

 

Quantum Theory in the Context of a "block" Universe Model

Abstract: The conclusion is drawn; from considering the role of wavefunction collapse in a universe in which there is no universally held present or progression of time that a new, novel interpretation of Quantum Theory is needed in which events in a paticular space-time become casually disconnected from space-times which would typically be considered to casually follow and precede the space-time in question, and in which all possible space-times are realised.

It looks like rubbish. It even cites Peter Lynd, who is a college drop out with little behind his papers than philosophical rambling... personally, Peter Lynd is an oddity who should never have became famous.

 

And I say that politely.

It looks like rubbish. It even cites Peter Lynd, who is a college drop out with little behind his papers than philosophical rambling... personally, Peter Lynd is an oddity who should never have became famous.

 

And I say that politely.

 

That seems a little harsh I've read through Lynds papers myself and they seem interesting, he is published after all (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/622019?ln=en) but anyway that might be straying off topic. What do you think makes this one look rubbish, I've only skimmed over it myself.

viXra should be a heads up that it's probably garbage.

viXra is where papers go when everywhere else has turned them down.

That seems a little harsh I've read through Lynds papers myself and they seem interesting, he is published after all (http://cdsweb.cern.c...rd/622019?ln=en) but anyway that might be straying off topic. What do you think makes this one look rubbish, I've only skimmed over it myself.

 

No self-serving paper nowadays would even dream of citing Peter Lynds.

 

He's was published because the board who looked over his work obvious can't discern a good scientific debate. This point was raised by many scientists at the time of his.... fascinatingly bizarre leap to fame. They said his paper was .... ok, but certainly wasn't ground-breaking and most where surprised it managed to get published in that specific journal.

 

Anyway, that's makes this work rubbish. But, I will take a better look later.