First,anybody can assert anything about their achievements or the nature of the universe. For the average person to assent to what they assert,those best informed to do need to assess those claims and judge them.Modern science stands on the pillar of mutual verification.That is why it is different from philosophy and reliigion.
The question is
Has Oyibo achived the goal he claims to have achieved,developing a Theory of Everything?
How are we to know? By reading the comments of those who have the specialised training to make such an assessment.
My argument is that such assessments either do not exist or are difficult to find.I also argue that I dont expect any scientist agrees that Oyobo has achieved what he claims.
I argue that this statement from Animalus'review "We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that Professor Oyibo's GUT has a sound mathematical and physical basis and is a viable frame work for a Grand Unified Field Theory of Everything " is not stating that Oyibo has created the theory.I interpret the concept of a framework as indicating the possibility of such a development.
On this point you make:
"Animalu has reviewed it for the Nigerian Mathematical Center, it is not good enough for you".
Yes.It is not good enough for me. A work that aspires to such a goal,not to talk of one the author claims does actually achieves the goal,and spends a lot of time and energy in advertising his claim,to the point of being put on nation's postage stamp,should be globally reviewed.So,one review,for one group in the home country of that scientist,is not enough for me. I want to know why I cant see more reviews of that work and the context in which that one review emerged in the first place.
If Oyibo can spend so much energy publicising his claim to achievement,he ought to have at least sent the book to other academic bodies for review.Why has he not done so? If he has can we be pointed to the reviews?
On your argument that Oyibo is being ignored because of his theistic views on being inspired by God in his work,I doubt if that holds water.Many scientists might not identify with religion, but in the realm of mathematics,the science speaks for itself.If you like get your inspiration from Mammy Water,from Satan or wherever and state that in bold type in front of your paper.The fundamental score is
What does the mathematics say?
Does it prove what it sets out to prove?Even if it does not,does it demonstrate qualities of value in themselves even if its stated gaol is not achieved? It is an intellectual operation that stands or falls on those terms.
It might have been reached through intuition,through inspiration but in the end it most be assessed in terms of its logical relationship with the point it claims to prove.Any other stand implies art,not mathematics.
Its also not true that there is a divorce between science and religion.Various scientists point out their quasi-religious and outright religious views and they have been appreciated both for their work and their views.One of the most recent of this is Paul Davies,who won the Templeton Prize, which recognises work that correlates science and religion.This has not prevented Davies from working as a successful scientific cosmologist and in an academic setting.
Even more fundamental than the example of Davies are those of Georg Cantor and Kurt Godel,who I understand argue for the existence of mathematical entities as independent of the human mind which discovers them,if I am not oversimplifying their perspectives.
So,I dont think its true that the reason why Oyibo has been ignored by the scientific community is because he claims inspiration from God.
I also dont buy the argument from racism.At the very least,with all the noise and self marketing Oyio has made a group of scientists both Black and non-Black should have rallied round him to support his cause.
Or are you arguing that this work is beyond their understanding?Animlau at least claims to understand it.Can he be the only one?
You wrote that Oyibo's equations are a subset of Einstein's equations.How does that help the argument? I understand Einstein struggled to arrive at the Theory of Everything without success.So I cant see how invoking his work which a far as I know does not that address that subject helps the argument.
You will need to educate us on what authority you make this claim on behalf of Oyibo;
"he derived the elusive but highly sought-after equations of GUT [Grand Unified Theory] of mathematical physics. (Did I say a Nigerian found it first?)"
Are you making the claim on your own authority? Have you studied the work on the basis of your competence to assess it and judged it as demonstrating this achievement? If so, what are you doing to make sure the scientific world and the world at large is made aware of what must be one of the greatest achievements the human race or of any race anywhere will ever achieve- a unification of all the forces in existence known to scientific cosmology? If you are not engaged actively in spreading knowledge of this fantastic accomplishment through all available channels, you need to tell us why? Are you aware of the implications of such an achievement for the human race,in general,and,in a different context, for the Black race?"
If you have not come to this assessment of Iyibo's work on your own authority,since you might not see yourself as qualified to do so because that field is not your speciality,on what authority do you come to this conclusion? It cannot be Animalu's essay because even you are likely to acknowledge at the very least that Animalu's review does not constitute an unequivocal assertion of Oyibo's claims to have developed a Theory of Everything.Relevant here is a Yoruba saying that when you see an an elephant you do not say I saw something pass by in flash.You declare I have seen an elephant! I await such declarations by scientists who are are qualified to asses this work.
I sated that Oyibo has published work in scientific fora but that I have seen only one publication on his Theory of Everything in such fora. I wonder why he is not submitting that theory to the scrutiny of his peers through such a process.He could not have got his PhD through self publication.If he wants to now work outside the scientific establishment that he should state why.Otherwise he needs to explain why he used it to get a PhD and publish some papers and opt out now it makes him look unseriuos.
I am most sceptical about this assertion of yours:
As far as I know, Oyibo's work in GUT has been published in journals, presented in conferences before competent scholars, printed in Conference Proceedings, before being finally published in book forms".
I want to see those
1)Journal papers or links to them
b)the conference proceedings
If anyone can produce them then we can agree that Oyibo has tried to have his work on GUT assessed by his peers.
Even if he has,which I doubt,what is the assessment of his peers on the claims to have provided a successful Theory of Everything?
The point is not whether Oyibo wrote his equations on toilet paper in an in academic publication.The point is that that toilet paper should be assessed by those qualified to do so. Academic publications are the central method of achieving such assessment.If Oyibo did not care for the opinions of his peers,why is he at work on Youtube and news papers making his claims? He is not equatable to Grigory Perelman who published his work on a website frequented by mathematicians and refused to publish in journals.as frar as I know.He then retired to his mothers house in Russia and ignored the award of the $1,000 Fields Medal.Meanwhile Oyibo went to Nigeria to canvas recognition for himself and got himself placed on his country's postage stamp.
You state:
"Pozzi wrote that Oyibo's paper he was asked to review is "an important contribution to the knowledge of fluid mechanics."
So?
The argument is not about whether or not Oyibo is a successful mathematician.The argument is whether or not he has achieved what he claim to fame rests on the development of a successful Theory of Everything.
Or are you arguing that a contribution to fluid mechanics is equal ti a Theory of Everything?
Let us see the reviews that assert that Gabriel Oyibo has developed a successful Theory of Everything.
We have many successful Nigerian mathematicians.The argument is not about being a good mathematician.That is not the argument Oyibo is making.
I believe I have made my case.
Thanks
Toyin
On 20 November 2010 19:47, Dare Afolabi <afolabi.dare@gmail.com> wrote:
Toyin,
My defense of Prof Oyibo is predicated upon the fact that I have
actually read almost every one, if not all, of the mathematical papers
he has written since 1983. I am also familiar with his 1981 PhD
thesis.
I have also read many of Professor Animalu's papers, three of them
relating to Oyibo's work on GUT, the Grand Unified Theorem. I do see
that you've quoted two words, "viable framework" from page 2 of
Animalu's 27-page review paper on Oyibo's GUT to suggest that Animalu
somehow casts doubt on Oyibo's work. Such a suggestion, if that is
what you wanted to make, is actually orthogonal to the truth. I think
you would have seen this if, instead of going to the bottom of page 2,
you had merely glanced at the top of page 1. There you would have seen
the title of the paper from which you quote: "A Review of Oyibo's
GRAND UNIFIED THEOREM With Realizations of a Hierarchy of Oyibo-
Einstein Relativities." And here is the complete sentence your quote
is excised from: "We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that
Professor Oyibo's GUT has a sound mathematical and physical basis and
is a viable frame work for a Grand Unified Field Theory of
Everything."
Please take note of the phrase, "Oyibo-Einstein Relativities," in the
title. Please note also the conclusion of Animalu that Oyibo's
Relativity "has a sound mathematical and physical basis." May I add
that Oyibo's Relativity is a superset of Einstein's Special and
General Relativities.
Kindly permit me a digression here. When you hear of Oyibo using the
phrase "Theory of Everything" (ToE) please note that he did not
concoct the term. ToE is sometimes used as an alias for Grand Unified
Theorem, or Grand Unified Theory, (GUT). GUT is the container, as it
were, of everything--every field theory, every known physical force in
the universe (gravity, electricity, magnetic force, nuclear weak and
strong forces, everything--in a single mathematical equation. These
two terms, GUT and ToE, are widely used by physicists. Everyone's been
looking for GUT. Oyibo, the Nigerian, found it first. But Oyibo, in
documenting his equations for GUT, added that it was not really his
own work but that of God Almighty (GA), hence he prepended GA to the
existing GUT and called his theorem GAGUT: God Almighty's Grand
Unified Theorem. GAGUT, as Oyibo insists on calling GUT, is an
irritant which does not endear him to some influential but atheistic
or agnostic physicists who resent this upstart African coming from
engineering to upturn the neatly laid out order of things in their
exclusive playground. Who does he think he is to change GUT to GAGUT?
And what is his pedigree? Was he an apprentice to anyone in our club?
(Herein lies the root of one of his problems. It is not new for him,
in his article on transonic aerodynamics published in the AIAA
_Journal_, 27(11):1572-1578 (1989), Oyibo wrote, "This paper is
dedicated to God for His inspiration"). End of digression.
In my opinion, Professor Oyibo's claim to uncommon fame is founded on
at least two monumental, scientific achievements:
(1) he obtained closed-form solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations
of mathematical fluid dynamics, and
(2) he derived the elusive but highly sought-after equations of GUT of
mathematical physics. (Did I say a Nigerian found it first?)
You say you have searched for Oyibo's publications and found only one
on "scientific cosmology." I don't know what you mean by that. But if
you mean the theory of relativity, then you should continue the search
because, eventually, you should find more. They are out there. You
also assert that Oyibo has shielded his work from the scientific
scrutiny of his peers. This is, again, not congruent with the truth.
Here, for example, are some readily verifiable facts to contradict
your claim in this regard.
Let us take Oyibo's work on (1) and (2) above.
(i) Please look up item MR1799334 (2001j:76032) in the Mathematical
Reviews database, MathSciNet, published by the American Mathematical
Society (AMS). After reading the 50-page, 1997 journal article
authored by Oyibo, the Reviewer states, "The author presents an exact
solution of the steady Navier-Stokes equations, for the incompressible
flow around a cylinder, obtained by means of the transformation group
technique." The Reviewer concludes with the statement, "Certainly an
analytical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations for a basic
geometry represents an important contribution to the knowledge of
fluid mechanics." By the way, Pozzi the Reviewer is not a Nigerian.
And AMS only asks experts in the field to do their reviews.
(ii) Also, look up item MR1455591 (98e:83007) in the same AMS
MathSciNet database. This was reviewed by Jaume J. Carot, an expert on
Relativity and Differential Geometry. As allowed under the rules for
AMS Reviewers, if a Reviewer agrees with the paper, he may simply use
the author's abstract or summary as the text of his review, instead of
writing his own review _ab initio_. This is what Carot did.
As far as I know, Oyibo's work in GUT has been published in journals,
presented in conferences before competent scholars, printed in
Conference Proceedings, before being finally published in book forms.
This is a normal progression, at least in engineering, as far as I
know: after presentation in conferences, publication in journals, new
materials end up in textbooks.
But you take some effort to disparage his publication sequence and
outlets. Assuming arguendo that the facts were as you assert, that his
outlets were irreputable indeed, don't you know that in mathematics
the outlet does not really matter? It does not matter one jot whether
one writes the equations on the back of an envelope, on toilet paper,
or on a golden tablet presented before the Royal Society of London:
the equations speak for themselves. Are his equations right or wrong?
That is the question.
Let me tell you something, sir. If you are an expert in mathematical
fluid dynamics, and one day you arrive at the office to meet a request
from the American Mathematical Society to review, for their world-
renowned database, a journal article by a "mad" man claiming to have
found closed-form solutions to the celebrated Navier-Stokes equations,
that is an assignment you are not going to take lightly. For one
thing, it is a solution you yourself would have been looking to find.
And it would be a golden opportunity for you to put this "mad" man in
his place. You are now about to write the most stinking rebuke to
teach him and any future upstarts a lesson they would never forget;
they would never again waste your time or that of the AMS. But that is
not what happened. Pozzi wrote that Oyibo's paper he was asked to
review is "an important contribution to the knowledge of fluid
mechanics." Wow!
If you don't do Navier-Stokes, or earn your keeps by knowing
relativity inside out, then the names Pozzi and Carot may not ring a
bell. Suffice to know that these are scholars of no mean repute.
People who are not experts in the field can repeat, over and over
again, that Oyibo's work has not been peer-reviewed, that it is 419,
etc. Yet, they have obviously not even read the Oyibo papers under
debate, nor Animalu's reviews of them, nor the reviews of them by
Carot. As for me, I know what or who to believe: my own eyes, the
brains of Animalu and Carot, and the AMS review process.
And, dear Toyin, what do you mean by "peer review" anyway? Isn't an
AMS review of a mathematical paper a form of peer review? It is after
all a *review*, done by a highly knowledgeable *peer* who is,
moreover, identified in *public*. A public peer review process.
Animalu has reviewed it for the Nigerian Mathematical Center, it is
not good enough for you.
Carot has reviewed it for the American Mathematical Society, it is not
good enough for you.
I am open-minded by training and disposition. So, I am ready to
entertain the possibility that Animalu and Carot don't know squat in
relativity. So, let's cut through the chase. Give me a name, the name
of the reviewer who is good enough for you.
Somebody please tell me: why would Animalu who worked with Dirac
(Nobel Physics Laureate) at Cambridge, a Past President of the
Nigerian Academy of Science, an expert on Relativity; why on earth
should he ruin his reputation for Oyibo who was relatively obscure at
the time he was asked to do the review by the Nigerian Mathematical
Centre headed by Professor Ale? Why would an AMS Reviewer, Pozzi, lie
to the whole world and say that Oyibo made important contributions to
fluid mechanics if he, Oyibo, did not? And Carot; why, oh why, would
Carot risk his prestige for a Nigerian scammer he had never met? And
if, through some ingenious scheme, the non-Nigerian scientists Pozzi
and Carot were hypnotized and scammed by Oyibo some ten years ago, why
are they still in stupor? Isn't it time for them to wake up and admit
they've been had?
And so when all is said and done, we are asked to believe that all
these great minds, masters of their own trade, have been serially
snookered in their own turfs by a "mad" 419 scam artist, a mere jack
of all trades hopping from engineering to physics and pretending to be
a mathematician. Hear what they imply: this Oyibo apprentice has
successfully scammed these master mathematicians with mathematics! And
who should we believe in their stead? Who are the smart alecks able to
see through Oyibo's scam? A hoard of internet keyboard operators who
obviously have not even read a single page of the mathematical volumes
under review?
I see.
Please give Oyibo a break. <http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/
articles/guest-articles/give-gabriel-oyibo-a-break.html>By Dare Afolabi.
On Nov 19, 10:37 am, toyin adepoju <toyin.adep...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Dare,
>
> Having read your defense of Oyibo,the point of yours I identify with is that
> we should locate what is genuine in Oyibo's claims to achievement in
> cosmology.
>
> We are in the process of doing so.Ogonna,the other day,presented a review by
> a Nigerian mathematician,Animalu, of a book by Oyibo.Animalu states that
> the book provides a viable framework for a Unified Theory..Ogonna argues
> that the term "viable framework" is equal to developing a successful
> framework.I dont think that argument is tenable.
>
> The manner in which Oyibo is carrying out his quest for recognition suggests
> to me that he does not expect to get such recognition from the scientific
> community and is working on the gullibility of Nigerians emerging from the
> generally low level of understanding about science in the country,along
> with the hunger for heroes,as Emeagwali does.
>
> I am of this view beceause the central plank of Oyibo's method of
> communicating his ideas are non-scientific fora,not fora where scientists
> qualified to assess his work will do so,and henceforth educate the general
> public.
>
> Having done a search of his publications I can see one in a scientific
> publication that addresses his ideas in scientific cosmology. The others in
> scientific publications address other subjects,different from the fields of
> the discoveries he claims. The other publication of his in terms of his self
> described discoveries seems to be a book publication by a non-academic
> press.That is problematic beceause of the problem of quality control.The
> value of an academic press is that scholars in the relevant field examine
> the work and decide if it is fit for publication in terms of contributing
> to knowledge in the field.
>
> Even if Oyibo did publish in scholarly channels,does his work achieve the
> goal of creating a Theory of Everything as he claims it does?
> Why is his work not reviewed by other scientists, particularly in fora
> where it can be examined by his peers in the scientific community? Does he
> submit the work to journals for publication and the book for review by
> academic journals? If he has published in scientific fora anything relevant
> to his claims to discoveries beyond that paper I saw it is certainly not
> easy to find.That would be odd for a person who is so sure of his
> achievement.
>
> I have read that he claims that prominent scientists have examined his
> discoveries and given their accreditation.I am yet to see any
> review,anywhere,apart from that by Animalu,which, tellingly enough, as far
> as I remember, is on a website on Black scientists at the University of
> Buffalo,,a website that takes pains to describe Oyibo's claims as
> fraudulent.
>
> I am of the view that Oyibo is not likely to be telling the truth about
> those reviews by scientists.I would be happy to be proved wrong. I could be
> proved wrong in my near conviction that no reviews by those scientists
> exist. I would be pleased to be proved wrong in my conviction that even if
> they exist,they do not agree that Oyibo has developed a successful Theory of
> Everything.
>
> If such accreditation had been achieved these arguments would be
> unnecessary. The claim that racism is behind Oyibo's not being celebrated
> by the global scientific community will not hold.
>
> Oyibo has made enough noise for his case to have achieved positive attention
> from his peers,if he has a case. I am curious to know in terms of what
> scenario Oyibo could have achieved all he claims and yet receive no acclaim
> from his peers and resorts to focusing his claims of achievement on his
> website,the media and Youtube.
>
> Having addressed the question of Oyibo's relationship to the scientific
> community in the context of his self described cosmological discoveries,I
> want to address his focus on the media.
>
> I have read a quote purportedly from Oyibo claiming that the Nigerian papers
> need to bring his work to the limelight the way the New York Times did for
> Einstein,claiming that as a central method by which scientific works come
> to light. That is only partly true and is a distortion of the story of
> Einstein whose work achieved prominence well before his fame in the US.
>
> I will not dwell on Oyibo's use of Youtube because it has its value.The
> bottom line,though,is that the best assessors of the work of scientist is
> not the general public but other scientists.
>
> Along those lines,I think your use of the stories of Einstein and Newton in
> your essay is misleading. You use those examples to support your claim
> that the Oyibo case is comparable to that of those men.I think the way you
> use those examples,without your knowing it,throws up considerations that
> highlight Oyibo's weaknesses and the sense of unseriousness in his approach
> to presenting his self described discoveries.
>
> First, Newton.Yes, Newton engaged in religious,philosophical,occult and
> scientific cosmological exploration and understood his scientific,
> religious and philosophical cosmology as unified.Even then,his work in
> scientific cosmology takes pains to work strictly in terms of the
> quantitative tools of scientific cosmology.His magnum opus, the *Mathematical
> Principles of Natural Philosophy,* is instructive in this regard. Almost
> all the work operates in terms of rigorous quantitative analysis. At the
> conclusion,the General Scholium, he expounds the philosophical and
> religious conclusions he draws in relation to the scientific work, but does
> not argue that he can prove those ideas they way he is able to prove such
> concepts in physical cosmology as the laws of gravity and of motion.
>
> He describes the intellectual techniques of observation,induction and
> generalization,in relation to mathematics, through which he has developed
> his physical cosmology. He concludes the work by describing his vision of an
> ultimate unity between celestial mechanics and motion in the human body,but
> concludes that having reached the limits of his scientific abilities he
> cannot prove the factuality of this vision "we are not furnished with such a
> sufficiency of experiments...." or lines almost identical to those.
>
> If Oyibo has discovered a method for being able to prove religious and
> philosophical conceptions through the quantitative methods of
> mathematics,or through a unity between quantitative and qualitative
> methods,or through the development of new epistemic categories, is he
> spelling out his methods or engaging in using ideas that uncritically
> conflate fields of knowledge so as to dazzle the uniformed or does he lack
> the philosophical and methodological sophistication to explain what he
> claims to be doing so as to make clear its terms of reference?
>
> Einstein.You mention that Einstein was championed by Sir Arthur Eddington
> and Oyibo could do well with a champion. Note that Einstein worked always
> within the channels of formal science.His early three ground breaking
> articles were published in Annanel der Physique,Annals of Physics,I think,a
> prestigious scientific journal, and critiqued by his peers.Eddington's
> support came later through an experimental verification of Einstein's
> ideas,thereby complementing the theoretical analysis by the scientific
> community.Oyibo,on the other hand,does not seem to be working within the
> framework of the scientific establishment and its rigorous rules of
> assessment.He seems to be the central scientific assessor of his self
> acclaimed work.
>
> Is he arguing, like Grigory Perelman,the Russian scientist awarded the
> $1,000 dollar Fields Medal but who turned it down,that he is opposed to the
> scientific establishment and is going it on his own? Is he arguing that the
> establishment is too narrow in its perceptions to appreciate the
> revolutionary scope of his work?
>
> I dont seem to see such a principled and revolutionary claim in reports
> by and of him.He seems to be arguing that other scientists have given
> credence to his claims of achievement.I am yet to see any evidence of that.
>
> Yes,he has published lot of standard mathematical work.The claim to fame
> he evokes,however,is not for that but for the theory which is proving so
> nebulous to substantiate.
>
> The fact that the Nigerian government could have put on their postage stamp
> two scientists,Oyibo and Emeagwali, whose work cannot be verified in terms
> of the achievements they claim, says much about the level of
> underdevelopment in the country at that time, particularly in terms of
> understanding of the culture of science and technology.
>
> Thanks
> Toyin
>
> ...> On 19 November 2010 11:31, Dare Afolabi <afolabi.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On a related note, I've responded to critics of Professor Gabriel
> > Oyibo in an article on Nigeria Village Square,
> > <http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/give-
> > gabriel-oyibo-a-break.html>.
>
> > Dare Afolabi.
>
> > On Nov 18, 7:32 pm, toyin adepoju <toyin.adep...@googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > A misconception is passing the rounds of Nigerian centred fora that
> > > Professor Toyin Falola is spearheading the recent critiques of Philip
> > > Emeagwali, a Nigerian scientist accused of making false claims about his
> > > achievements.Sakhos Silas Ejiofor even titled his essay on the Emeagwali
> > > affair in the Nigerian Village Square site a
> > > rejoinder<
> >http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/articles/guest-articles/another-l..
> > .>to
> > > a Sahara Reporters article written by Toyin Falola.
>
> > > Please note:
>
> > > Professor Toyin Falola has not written a word on the Emeagwali saga.The
> > > only connection Toyin Falola has with those critiques is that he hosts
> > the
> > > listerve USAAfrica,where a debate on the subject took place some time
> > ago.A
> > > broad range of subjects are discussed on USAAfrica spanning various
> > > aspects of Africana existence.
>
> > > Thanks
> > > Toyin Adepoju
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa
> > Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> > For current archives, visit
> >http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> > For previous archives, visit
>
>
> read more »
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment