Moo's virtual world

I'm currently studying gravitational radiation. (I think most would agree that although general relativity is an elegant subject, partly because of its geometrical nature and simple equations, it is also difficult and can be very confusing.)

While surfing (thank you Google scholar) I came across an article entitled: Gravitational waves are fictitious entities. Obviously intrigued, I read this article and a few others by the author (mostly because they were not self-contained, always citing his previous papers). Then, still not really understanding what where his arguments, I emailed him commenting on the format of his articles and asking a few specific questions. Here is his reply:

Dear Lalancette,

I have given rigorous proofs of the non-existence of gravitational waves. I anm sorry if you are not able to understand my arguments. I think that you are rather ignorant.

Best Regards,

Angelo Loinger

So in my traditional style, I replied:

Hello again,

Isn't ignorance something to be expected of students, and indeed of anybody? My email was meant for 2 things. Provide some constructive criticism on your articles and try to understand them better.

Obviously, you are completely unreceptive to criticism (which was not on the scientific content of your articles, but rather their form) and very hostile. It is therefore no surprize that this work "has not attracted the attention of the concerned scholars" if your reply to any attention is the one you gave me.

I might write something eventually (in favor or not, I don't know yet) of your arguments, once I have reduced my ignorance on the subject, but I don't expect to have any further discussion (attempt) with you.

Good day,

Marc

“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” Confusius

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.” Elbert Hubbard

“Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance” Robert Quillen

Thank you quotation site. hehe

Sadly enough, I found another of his articles later. It is a pure gem of educated stupidity also claimed to be a "rigorous proof": "Quantum Gravity": An Oxymoron. I was dumbfounded when I saw that this article was published. Consequently I decided to share that feeling with the editors of the said journal, part of which follows:

This article contains only tautologies and has a nonsense conclusion. That can be seen without even knowing anything about physics as I now explain:

Theory 1 (quantum mechanics) and theory 2 (general relativity) are incompatible. That is obviously why people are trying to develop a new one: theory 3 (quantum gravity). A theory is basically the logical outcome of a series of axioms. Since theory 1 and theory 2 are incompatible, it follows that a successful theory 3 would
need different axioms. That is basically the content of this article, but then (and that is completely ridiculous), the author suggests that because theory 3 has different axioms, that it cannot exist.

"I shall now prove rigorously that, from a sound theoretical standpoint, there are
no quantum fluctuations of the fundamental tensor of general relativity." meaning:
theory 3 cannot exist.

"We realize now that the project of a theory such that the gik’s of the exact (non-approximate) formulation of general relativity are promoted to the role of operators of a function space implies a blatant contradiction with the above axiom of quantum theory." meaning: theory 3 has axioms different (and contradicting) those of theory 1.

Isn't this most funny and sad?