Look, man, I'm sorry if I offended you. If you wanna think his discoveries are important, fundamental, world-changing, go ahead. I came here to argue about Descartes, not Oyibo.

>Einstein was considered a crackpot in his day, so were
>Copernicus and Newton.

No, they were not. Newton was the most respected academic in the world. Some of Copernicus's work was persecuted, but not by the academic community (which didn't really exist at the time), rather by the church. Einstein was never considered anything close to a crackpot. He was unknown at first, but he was really the opposite of a crackpot. He was very much involved with tthe academic community. He studied the work of Maxwell and Lorentz in complete detail. He built the special theory of relativity on the firm foundation supplied by their work. That's how "revolutionary" ideas become real science, by not actually being as revolutionary as they look.

>SO, that statement doesn;t concern
>me in the slightest...What does concern me is your eagerness
>to discredit and dispute the claim without thoroughly
>researching before you speak. And for you to be in the
>scientific field, knowing the importance of empirical
>evidence, how can you look on one website and trash the
>man's accomplishments like that?
>1) You said his Ph.D is in fluid dynamics, but in actuality
>he has his Ph. D. in Aeronautics and Mathematics from
>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Troy, New York where
>he worked for four (4) years on NASA/AFOSR sponsored
>research. (some crackpot, huh?)

Aerodynamics is a subfield of fluid dynamics. The fluid, by the way, is air. And when he's doing fluid dynamics (such as aerodynamics), I'm perfectly willing to think of him as a scientist. When he pretends to have a "Theory of Everything," he becomes a crackpot.

If his PhD is in aerodynamics from RPI, then chances are, he never even took a course in quantum field theory. Or in string theory. Or in advanced general relativity. Or in canonical quantum gravity. How could he solve the most fundamental problem in science if he doesn't even know what it is?!

>2) You said he hasn't written any books, and I showed them
>to you. (on AMAZON, there are 7)

It's easy to write a book. Anyone can publish a book, especially if he personally pays for the publication. It's more difficult to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Then, one's ideas must first be judged by people WHO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. That's the publication list that matters, and that one is tiny. And as regards fundamental physics, the list is nonexistant.

>3) You said that he has never proven the Navier-Stokes
>equation,

Actually I didn't say that. It wouldn't have made any sense. Equations are just equations, they cannot be proven or disproven. They can be SOLVED, and I probably did say that he has not found a general solution. I stand by that statement.

>and I showed you where Harvard's Clay School of
>Mathematics publicly recognizes his work.

No, you didn't, you directed me to the page of Oyibo's "home institution" (fitting description, since it's run out of his house), where HE mentions the CMI. If you go to the Clay Institute's website, www.claymath.org , you can search for his name. You will come up with nothing. A few months ago, a possible proof of the Poincare conjecture appeared. That was huge news. They reported it on the network nightly news shows. You claim there is a general solution of the NS equations out there, something much easier to check than a proof of the Poincare conjecture, yet the CMI doesn't even seem to have heard of it.

>4) You said that only one school recognized him and invited
>him to speak, I showed you 5.

No, those schools did not invite him to speak. According to Oyibo, a petition was circulated. That's easy to do, and was likely done by Oyibo himself. Again according to Oyibo, that petition gained 2000 signatures. Even if that number is accurate, it represents only a tiny cross section of the combined student populations of the 5 schools. The fact that 2000 students, spread across 5 universities, can be convinced to put a (possibly fake) signature on a petition as they are harangued in-between classes, is not surprising.

>5) You said he is unwilling to discuss GAGUT publicly,
>however between his many books and the interviews and
>transcripts found on his website, that is again, FALSE

So where can I go to find a MATHEMATICAL discussion (or even just a statement!) of his "theorem"? I've looked all over the OFAPPIT website, and come up with nothing. I've checked all the physics journals and e-print archives, and come up with nothing.

Do I go to one of his books? You're right that a few are listed on Amazon, but most are out of print. The rest are essentially out of print, with a 3 week wait for shipping, presumably that's how long it takes to print them out on Oyibo's home deskjet printer.

But even if I was willing to waste my money on one of his books, I'd have no guarantee that he would finally get to the point even there! Again, books are not peer-reviewed. New results are not presented in books.

>Maybe you should research his work for real then get back to
>me.

And maybe you should learn a little physics before you start arguing about its "holy grail."