Um...? I was hoping to get some clarification that your account is legit and some references to opinions from the broader research community for your big claims. I came here with an open mind and would have liked to learn something since CS is my passion for decades now.

Unfortunately, by reading your comment history, I learned that you've been self promoting here for quite a while and have always been ignoring questions about references to other people's thoughts on your work. I also learned that there is a wikipedia talk page and apparently the same pattern happened there 5-6 years ago, where you were asked about citations and could only come with self-citation and claims of harrassment. And after sockpuppet edits you got banned there. That's sad, for everybody.

It would be so easy for you to just throw a handful of citations into the mix and let the research speak for itself! You want to go down in CS history as somebody having discovered something big, right? I'd love to see that! Then I could tell my grandkids that I was sitting in the front row! But you won't convince anybody by only doing self-promotion and complaining about "personal attacks". Scientific progress works by convincing the scientific community, and for that you need to engage with it positively.

Dear Ganafagol,

It's great that CS has been your passion for a long time!

However, personal attacks do not belong on Hacker News.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a well-known site for libeling

people :-( Wikipedia libels should not be repeated on Hacker News!

Hacker News should be a welcoming forum. Participants on

Hacker News should not be subjected to personal attacks.

Of course, I engage extensively in the scientific community.

Before the covid-19 pandemic, I gave lectures at University

of Cambridge, Oxford University, Edinburgh University,

Imperial University, Stanford, University of Newcastle, etc.

Also, I give seminars at addition forums. For example, see the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJ4X0l2298k

You can read the articles in the extensive references in articles linked here:

https://professorhewitt.blogspot.com/2019/07/updated-article...

Do you have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion?

PS. Also, do you have any particular questions about the

subject matter?

Dear Ganafagol,

Science does not work exactly as you have described.

References to scientific papers come afterward.

Sometimes it has taken considerable time for references to appear.

Also, references to other work in a scientific article

appear in context of how the references relate to

the subject of the article.

Science is not based on authorities per se. Instead,

the community works things out over time. Sometimes a consensus

will form. Aristotelian physics lasted for a long time.

However, consensus may dissolve or be replaced

with a revised consensus. For example, Newtonian physics was

revised in relativistic physics.