When I heard that this was a forum, <http://groups.google.com/group/
usaafricadialogue/>, where Nigerian intellectuals were castigating
Oyibo's work and calling it 419, I signed up a few days ago thinking
that those putting Oyibo down were familiar with the content of his
scholarly work so that I may, perhaps, learn some **FACTS** I might
have overlooked. All I have seen thus far in this forum is that
Oyibo's detractors--scholars at that--have not even taken in just one
page of Oyibo's scholarly work. Toyin Adepoju, having been in the
vanguard of the attack, should have the decency to apologize.
Toyin, next time you quote me please do so correctly. It is only fair
among scholars to do so.
(1) I did NOT write "that Oyibo's equations are a subset of Einstein's
equations."
Instead of "subset," I used "superset." There's a big difference
between the two.
Here's what I actually wrote: "May I add that Oyibo's Relativity is a
superset of Einstein's Special and General Relativities."
This is not just quibbling about words because you then went on to
write as if I had said the exact **opposite** of what I actually said.
(2) In response to Gloria Emeagwali you wrote, _inter alia_, "Aflolabi
state sthat Corot and Pozzi reviewed Oyibo's work on the Navier-Stokes
equation.That work is not Oyibo's self declared claim to fame."
Again, this is absolutely incorrect. Please don't attribute to me what
I did not write.
I did not say that Carot reviewed Oyibo's work in fluid mechanics.
Amilcare Pozzi is the expert who wrote the _Mathematical Reviews_
article on fluid dynamics, while Juame Carot is the expert who reviews
for the AMS (American Mathematical Society) on relativity and
differential geometry. These may sound like small details but
attention to such details is important.
In an attempt to assail Professor Gabriel Oyibo, saying he has only
one paper in relativity [or "scientific cosmology" as you call it] you
have simply advertised to the whole world your inability to do
competent bibliographic search. The plain truth is that Oyibo has
presented his work in fluid mechanics and relativity at scientific
conferences, written them up for publication in journals, before
publishing them in book form. All it takes is a few key strokes or
mouse clicks to confirm this.
By Dare Afolabi.
On Nov 22, 1:02 am, toyin adepoju <toyin.adep...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> Afolabi,
>
> 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.d...@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
>
> ...
>
> 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
No comments:
Post a Comment