...the universe is not expanding, but the observers instead are in an "apparent shrinking" process, which is only manifesting itself in the form of current observations?
Does that fly in the face of what is presently known?
Don't shoot the messenger, there is no physicist anywhere around here, just a thought challenger
Indeed.
I may testify that it is called Pythagorean merely because of the path via which the theory's proof got popularised in the western world. No more no less.
This does not make any other discovery paths any less or more important, just parallel efforts (and Chinese are certain to have had many parallel discoveries).
However, when somebody comes to contest the ordering and aetiology of events he better comes with proof about it; that kind of proof is yet lacking or weak at best.
The ancient greek world tends to get much of the credit, merely because the birth and death dates (years) of any people involved, innovators and story-tellers alike, tend to be well-defined or well-bound and as such allow for refutable statements, which is good ground for efforts to reconstruct scientific history. This certainly does not cancel the importance of any discoveries happening in co-developing cultures, yet let's remind that it took centuries back then for ideas to propagate around.
...is when we can watch the watchers;
Let's explain this: 2-way circuits, where watched and watcher are in total symmetry in an unambiguous way.
Ah, right. What would you think of peer-reviewers who clap their hands for an article critical of peer-review process? Who's going to pay for this?
Well, yes.
When we build distributed systems, the need to setup a distributed consensus algorithm is appearing in front of us, time and again. Leslie Lamport (of LaTeX & Time-Clocks fame) came up with a novel algorithm during early 90s about to solve this is a very competitive way (Paxos is its name). Sadly, the algorithm remained shunned for a number of years, due to rejection via the very same channel in which it was eventually published many years later. If you realise the immediate practical impact of that algorithm and what an 8 years delay means in the world of CS, and the cost putting all these together, the result is staggering and sobering at the same time.
So, yes, let's now all peer-review this statement: "peer-review systems are imperfect and provide no guarantee for any certain quality result".
Peer review is merely a compromise to increase throughput of papers, which are relatively median and more easily digestible, because this is what keeps the academia salary system in good lubrication. It provides no level of assurance that the most impactful paper gets noticed first, neither that it receives sufficient feedback in order to improve upon original concepts. In sort, human intellect won't be easily replaced via a procedural setup, yet.
Indeed, it sounds as ambitious and coherent as `X`!!!
...relevant... as in:
"nearly each pixel of your screen while reading this is rendered via either C, C++ or something that is written or compiled in C and derivatives".
That makes it sufficiently relevant, doesn't it?
Or, better, find an agent who can act on your behalf and provide for both, against some reasonable cost.
There is no reason to reinvent the wheel, unless you really need to.
hm... something interesting might be going on with email... in that case, google-plus-me, we are not all that much hidden in cyberspace!
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
