Einstein Called Into Question by New Paper

A new paper was published by the Indian Journal of Science and Technology that calls the foundations of Einsteinian relativity into question.  Interesting reading for those who understand theoretical physics.  Obviously I agree; the whole concept of bending space is ridiculous on its face.

Experimental & theoretical evidences of fallacy of space-time concept and actual state of existence of the physical universe, by Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Indian Journal of Science and Technology Issue No:3 Vol.5 March – 2012

Abstract

The postulate of constancy of velocity of light irrespective of relative uniform motion of the source and the observer introduced by Albert Einstein in the article ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ Albert Einstein (1905a) is absolutely consistent with the physical and experimental observations. The other postulate of ‘laws by which physical systems undergo change are not affected when referred to different inertial reference frames’ is in contradiction with all the derivations in the article. Since the change in any physical system; due to whatever reason; could be mainly in reference to the space and time of that physical system; whereas article derives that space and time of any physical system would be different when referred to different inertial reference frames. This article will establish theoretically as well as experimentally that the concept of length contraction in the direction of motion, as proposed by Lorentz & FitzGerald to explain Michelson–Morley experiment is fundamentally incorrect. Consequently the concept of exchangeability of mass and energy as proposed by Einstein in the article ‘Does the Inertial of the Body Depend upon its Energy Content’ Albert Einstein (1905b) fails conceptually, theoretically as well as experimentally. The theoretical and experimental evidences against the concept of contraction of space in the direction of motion leads to the failure of space–time concept and every theory and concept associated with it. The obvious conclusions are space is finite & absolute, time is relative & emergent, matter is emergent and radiation is the electromagnetic work capacity dissipated by the matter which propagates in the medium of ether as a wave motion. Consequent upon these experimental and theoretical evidences this unique state of existence of the physical universe emerges which has been partly described in the article ‘Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things & Living Things’ Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) and is further discussed herein. This article discusses in detail the experimental evidences of the coordinate transformation between two coordinate systems in uniform motion derived in Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b); which in turn shows that Lorentz transformation which Einstein physically interpreted in the article Albert Einstein (1905a) is fundamentally incorrect. Consequently the physics which evolved in twentieth century is shown to be incorrect including the formulae and. The final conclusion is that space is finite & absolute and accordingly the Big Bang Theory is established to be baseless.

The author has issued peer review challenges to every scientist in the field asking them to prove him wrong.

For those who want a little more on this subject, check out what can be modeled with just simple standing waves:

Matter is made of waves - G. Lafrenière

  • http://twitter.com/shafiqifs Mohammad Shafiq Khan

                               OPEN CHALLENGE
     
     
    The article ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ by Albert Einstein is based on trickeries is proved beyond any doubt whatsoever in the articles (1). ‘Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe’ published in the peer-reviewed journal namely Indian Journal of Science & Technology (March 2012 issue) available on http://www.indjst.org (2) ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies By Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries’ (Open letter to Professors, Teachers, Researchers and Students of Physics) published in peer-reviewed journal Elixir Online Journal (February 2012 issue) available on http://www.elixirjournal.org. The Voigt transformation was simply a mathematical possibility which was changed by Lorentz by introducing the Lorentz factor but the Lorentz factor is simply a manipulation. Thus nature and forces in nature were trivialized and made subservient to mathematics in the theories of relativity, Big Bang Theory, Space-time concept and in all physical sciences which are directly or indirectly based on the ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’. It is unfortunate for humanity that exposing these trickeries took more than one hundred years.
     
    I openly challenge all the professors, researchers & teachers of physics/philosophy of physics to come forward & show me where I am wrong or else they have to accept  that they are teaching incorrect physics based on ‘trickeries’.
     
    My challenge may not be treated as a publicity stunt but I sincerely wish that truth should prevail on this planet and am expecting identical response from all truth loving people/intellectuals. I do understand that it is hard for mainstream physicists to reconcile with the alternative philosophy; though actual and factual; as almost all the living physicists and researchers are borne, brought up and taught physics which is fundamentally incorrect. Their livelihood is based on the physics which has been adopted as the result of fraud, but these material interests should never be a stumbling block to acknowledge the reality, which to my understanding is the essence of scientific thinking and honest living for the betterment of entire human society.
     
    I have not an iota of doubt that sooner or later the truth will prevail, but it would be in the interest of humanity that ‘truth’ is accepted now so that humanity comes out of clutches of materialism which in itself is naked atheism.
     
     
    Mohammad Shafiq Khan,
                                        (M.Sc. Physics)
                                        (M.Sc. Forestry)

    • http://twitter.com/verilypress lindy marie abbott

      “nature and forces in nature were trivialized and made subservient to mathematics in the theories” this is an excellent quotes!

    • Phil Modelle

      Your “science” is obviously grounded in your religion. While I respect your beliefs, I have to say: That is a poor foundation for science. I looked up your article and it seems that it was only published in one journal. I would very much like to see the credentials of your “Peers” who reviewed your submission. I would also like to see your math which proves your theory.

  • Khalid Masood

    TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHINGCreated and Written by KHALID MASOODTime Cosmology: [Time to re-study Time] TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING is The Time Universe Theory. I propose, only Time exists in the Universe. Only Time exists and all that exists is Time.At the heart of physical sciences is physics, and at the heart of physics is Time. The Universe itself or the laws of nature are time.Time Creates Space, Life, Consciousness, and the Universe itself. You, the computer, everything is part/form of time.Time is the only entity. Our classical and modern view of the physical world is wrong.Time tells matter how to create, matter tells time how to survive! No particles, no waves, not both and no vibrating or dancing strings. Only “FLUCTUATING EXTREME LEVELS OF ENERGY” write Everything of the Universe, including our consciousness and also Theory of Everything!!! The only truth about the physical universe is that the universe is not physical. Life and matter of the universe, is nothing but a physical illusion. The smartest phenomenon of the universe is the universe itself. On the whole universe is shapeless, massless and weightless.I CAN PICK IT UP!!! Einsteins second law, m = E/ c^2 i.e. m = E/ c2 [ How mass drives from pure Energy] raises the question whether mass can be understood more deeply as energy. And can we build, as Wheeler put it, “Mass Without Mass”? are the best predictions in favour of my “Time Theory of Everything.” In my view the first question is How pure energy drives from time?. The universe is not what it used to be, nor what it appears to be, as Frank W ilczek of MIT quoted in first chapter Getting to it of his book titled “The Lightness of Being” [ mass, ether, and the unification of forces ] also supports my theory. Infinity is finity on the whole. There is nothing original under the physical phenomena. All physical properties of the universe are secondary in nature.There is a universe behind the physical universe which is dark and primary universe. If a Theory of Everything is Holy Grail of cosmology, Time Theory of Everything is Holy Grail of Modern Physics! Physicists are hunting for an elusive particle that would reveal the presence of a new kind of field that permeates all of reality. Finding that Higgs field will give us a more complete understanding about how the elusive universe works! I believe in bold imagination in research. I believe the universe is not acadamic, and is not bound by our physical theories. Capture Higgs particle, eyes on a prize particle, the search for the Higgs boson [God Particle] and creation of micro black holes is nonsense idea. Higgs boson is not destiny. We have to re-study TIME and ETERNITY. Basic and primary stuff of the universe is not physical. All matter, energy, and fundamental forces of nature are secondary and referred by a unified primary force of nature. There is a co-ordination force in between God and all secondary forces of nature, which is more important than Higgs boson. I suggest this force is TIME. Higgs boson [God particle] should be named Time particle.Time is invisible presence and the only basic building block of the universe and everything in it. Time is so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our final understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive, that I have given it a nickname: ‘The God Force’! Time is at the very heart of physical discovery from the nature of matter to the origin of the universe. It is also a fundamental driver of everything in the universe. Many of tomorrows discoveries and technologies will emerge from Time physics. MOTHER OF ALL FUNDAMENTAL FORCES. [A union of forces and time] Time is mother of all fundamental forces. “Forces-time” in which time exists as fifth force with four fundamental forces. Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of time. TIME is a coordination force of the universe and multiverse referred by nature. Nothing has independent existence except time. Password of time is in the Mind of God!Everything in the universe,followed the laws of time. Tell me about the nature of time, I will create the Universe!!! If all cosmologists of the world say a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing! I WILL CHANGE THE HISTORY OF TIME ! God does not play particles’ game with the Universe. Spacetime has no fourth Dimension.Universe is three dimensional. The theory of time “t” as a fourth dimension of space, three dimensions of space and one dimension of time is wrong. All dimensions of space are time’s dimensions. Time is not the 4th dimension. Space is not 3D + T, space is 3TD. Time is the distance between two dimensions. Time is the longest and shortest distance between two dimensions. Time is mother of all dimensions. Dimensions are the result of time. TIME IS NOT A MANUFACTURED QUANTITY. Time has independent existence and is fundamental. Space is a manufactured quantity and secondary form of time. Space is only a display of time. I believe in infinite extra time dimensions only, and I know what these dimensions are, but I don’t believe time as extra dimension with space. I dont believe in extra spatial dimensions.The universe exists in three or 10 dimensions of time. [as string theory proposed, 10 of space and one of time dimension] There isnt just one dimension of time, says Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.There are two. One whole dimension has until now gone entirely unnoticed by us. Two time / 2T Physics [New scientist 13 October 2007, Hypertime, Cover story] Why we need two dimensions of time? Why not we need 11 and many more dimensions of time? A NEW HYPOTHESIS: [EXTREME LEVEL COSMOLOGY] EXTREME LEVEL THEORY: The study of the theory that all fundamental particles and vibrating one- dimensional strings are fluctuations of zero-dimensional and unidimensional Extreme Levels Of Energy. Extreme Level Fluctuations create the universe.Extreme level connections create mass, gravity, forces and everything in the universe.No-particle Proposal:Elemental building blocks of Nature are not particles. I dont believe particles in any shape or dimensions as basic building blocks of matter, energy, and everything in the universe. I have an alternative Fluctuating Extreme Levels hypothesis which is a part of my Time Theory of Everything [Extreme Level Theory] Extreme Level Theory suggests that basic building blocks of everything in the universe are composed of Fluctuating Extreme Levels of energy. In Extreme Level Theory of time, Extreme Levels correspond to different entities and quantities. If Extreme Level Theory proves correct, photons, electrons and neutrinos are different due to changes in the fluctuations of extreme levels. Prior to Extreme Level Theory, subatomic particles were envisioned as tiny balls or points of energy. Extreme Level Theory works on the premise that the tiniest subatomic bits that make up the elements of atoms actually behave like Fluctuating Extreme Levels and not like vibrating or dancing strings. Photon is no more now a particle, a wave, or has features of both. Photon exist at fluctuating extreme level of energy.About the “Origin of Mass.”For decades, the prevailing view in physics agrees that the Higgs field gives mass to matter, with the mediated by a boson particle called Higgs.But no one has seen the Higgs boson yet, despite the considerable time and money spent in his quest to particle accelerators.Time Field:The mass comes from the interaction of matter with the “Time Field” or “field Time” and not from field Higgs. There is noHiggs Field.Time field is “zero point field” and zero energy state of time-space.Time field is the lowest energy [zero-energy] state of time. That is extreme level of time in my T.T.O.E.TIME THEORY OF GRAVITY TIME GRAVITY:Gravity is time’s force. I believe in my ‘physical’ motto: “Time tells space how to create, space tells time how to expand and bend.” Deep down, the particles and forces of the universe are a manifestation of time. Time is the distance between two places. Time is the longest and shortest distance between two places. Gravity is a manifestation of Time-space. P.S: It’s Time-space and not space-Time. TIME COMES FIRST. Our entire research focus must be on “How time interact with matter and energy?” and “Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other?” Time can take the form of motion, light, electricity, radiation, GRAVITY….. just about anything honestly. Time theory of gravity is the best rival of General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Loop Gravity. TIME THEORY OF EVERYTHING will change the phenomena of new physics-extra dimensions, entanglement, entropy and information, black holes, tunneling, Bose-Einstein Condensates, chaos and complexity, dark matter, dark energy and meaning of Matter, Energy, Natural Forces, Consciousness, Life & Extraterrestrial Life and Death. It’s not time, it’s matter which is disappearing from the universe. Time is God, God Time. THE UNIVERSE IS A TIME MACHINE!!! God can’t exists outside of Time. Nothing exists outside of Time. I am part of the universe, as my heart is part of me. Therefore I am part of God.Khalid [email protected]

    • http://twitter.com/verilypress lindy marie abbott

      God is beyond time. Time is the reason that freewill and predestination are mutually possible realities that we humans cannot in our present timespace see as visible to God. But God is not time – your god might be time but not the God. He can’t be contained into such nice little packages and explanations, but it is nice to see scientist continuing to search for more knowing current theories have flaws and to keep questioning. We only discover is we continue to question.

    • http://twitter.com/verilypress lindy marie abbott

      “Time, matter and energy, how they interact with each other” Time, matter and energy were indeed the three necessary to start everything physical. John Lennox teaches this in an excellent way.

  • Shafiqifs

    @Khalid  Pantheism you propose is not philosophically tenable.

  • sfreddy

    I have noticed that basically you talk a lot and everyone ignores you. I also notice that you seem desperate to have someone pay attention to you and that you have an overwhelming need to be, “Right”. My suggestion is these are not healthy characteristics for a scientist. May you find what you are looking for and not suffer in life.

    • Phil Modelle

      That about sums it up. I ended up here after a journey that started on YouTube. I watched an excellent presentation by Sir. Roger Penrose and then, for reasons that allude me, decided to read the comments section. Shafiq Khan blasted relativity and made continuous references to his “Peer Reviewed” articles. I looked the articles up and noted that they had 178 views. Also, they were only published in the Indian Journal of Science. Hogwash. The lot of it.

      • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

        You are free to accept the open challenge and please do produce the rebuttal article & get it published in any peer-reviewed journal. For your information a few professors have already tried & failed besides almost all physicists are in complete knowledge of the open challenge and they can do nothing about it.

  • Andre Smith

    Another wannabe Einstein. Apparently there are quite a few of them out there.

    • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

      But no one has ever come up with open challenge which is standing despite lapse of more than one & a half years.

      • Andre Smith

        Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that perhaps there might be nothing here worth challenging? You are saying the big bang theory is baseless? What about the fact that galaxies are observed to be receding? Is that insufficient? Do you have an alternative to the big bang? If so what is it?

        • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

          Yes! I have proved my claims through published papers which are as under

          1. Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe
          2. Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
          3.Michelson-Morley Experiment: A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment
          4. Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology (Revised version on World Science Database, General Science Journal, Vixra and Academia.edu in my profile)
          5. ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’ by Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (www.elixirjournal.org Feb.2012)
          These publications are available at http://www.indjst.org (March 2012,oct 2010, oct 2011,Aug 2010) http://www.gsjournal.net, http://www.worldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives & Academia.edu in my profile.

          I have given the perfect & only possible alternative to Big Bang Theory through above mentioned papers which have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

          You got to understand that receding galaxies does not prove Big Bang Theory or expanding space but it also means the matter in galaxies is receding physically in the absolute space.

          • Andre Smith

            Well, I look forward to hearing the announcement of your Nobel Prize.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            My primary concern is that truth should prevail on this planet for which I expect reward & award from the obvious & evident Creator of the universe & life therein.

          • Andre Smith

            I have to admit that the “creator” is not “obvious & evident” to me. Have you seen this very informative little video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDAT98eEN5Q it is only 10 minutes and explains an awful lot. If you are Muslim, watch it and weep for lost opportunities.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Now is the time of Islamic Age. It is Neil Tyson who should weep for his illusion of so-called knowledge. I have been telling him to accept the open challenge since long but he has no answer to it. You better tell him to accept the open challenge.

          • Andre Smith

            We see here the perfect example of why the Islamic world is condemned forever to scientific irrelevance. You know the answers before you look at the evidence. That is very poor science.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Science is not the permanent inheritance of the west. West did enjoy the advantages of technology for some time but it need not be always like that. Yes! Muslim world is presently scientifically irrelevant but it need not be always like that. Soon they will take over in every field. Rest assured.

          • Andre Smith

            It would be good if the Muslim world was able to shake off it’s religious superstitions and join in with the scientific enterprise. There are hard scientific problems to be solved and we need all the help we can get. There is a lot of human potential going to waste. Everyone would welcome contributions from the nearly quarter of the world’s population that is now being squandered believing in things like flying horses, the moon splitting in two, the existence of angels and Al-Qadar. This is very sad, as there are many very intelligent people who will never achieve what they are capable of. I don’t mean to single out the Muslim world. The same applies to many Christians too.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Misinterpretations, misrepresentations & corruptions in religions could not used to reject the importance of religions in human life.I accept that there are different religions with contradictory claims and all the contradictory claims could not all be right. There has to be just one correct religion and it has to be the intellectual endevour to find out that one correct religion and therein shall be ultimate answer to all the scientific problems, human sufferings & purpose of human life.

          • Andre Smith

            The importance of religion in human life is one thing. It may be very important, or not important at all. That has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the true nature of the universe. You say that “there has to be just one correct religion”. This is not necessarily correct. I agree that at most only one religion can be correct, but there is another possibility that you do not seem to have considered: perhaps NO religions are correct.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            The question of perhaps or may be is required to be addressed very appropriately & that could be done scientifically and philosophically. The question of nature of universe has been addressed by me in the published paper ‘Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe’ which could be read by everybody at http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/issue/view/2885 which reveals that adopted paradigm of physical science is incorrect and according to the only paradigm of physics which emerges there is obvious & evident Creator of the universe. Having done that one could easily conclude that there has to be a very well defined purpose of creating the universe & life therein including humans.

      • moto perpetuo

        I’m going to phrase this as kindly as I can; please be assured that nothing I write here is intended as an insult, just as an honest appraisal. The fact that no physicist of any standing has responded to your ‘open challenge’ should not be interpreted as vinidication for your theories. Professional scientists have a great deal of demands on their time, not least their own research. Unsolicited papers are often unwelcome, and many if not most professional physicsts receive a deluge of papers every month from amateurs or ‘fringe’ scientists who believe they have proved existing physics wrong or discovered something genuinely novel. Most of these papers are long and deeply incompetent, and even beginning to read them would be a complete waste of time. To be blunt, we have better things to do. I have looked at the first few pages of your paper and can see why nobody has bothered to respond to your ‘challenge’. The first reason is that – and I mean no offence by this – it is rather poorly written, it ranges across several different dihttp://www.libertariannews.org/2012/03/31/indian-journal-of-science-and-technology/sciplines rather than concentrating on one, and is by an author unaffiliated with a major institution. The latter point is sufficient for most physicsts to disregard it without further investigation. The first few pages dealing with special relativity exhume arguments the world of physics was having in the 1920s. Arguments, I might add, which have been exhaustively examined theoretically and experimentally and settled to the satisfaction of everybody bar a few dissenting voices who are apparently deaf to reason. The argument is over. No serious physicist is going to bother reading past the first few pages, let alone wasting hours or days of their life arguing with somebody who thinks that 80 years of theoretical and experimental evidence is irrelevant.

        • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

          I see. All of the big questions are settled. All that’s left is working out the details – right?

          I find that position to be laughable. Science can’t even present a unified theory. It’s been over a hundred years since GR and SR were proposed.

          Van Flandern, along with many other physicists, have demonstrated that Lorentz’s version of relativity can account for all observations using LESS assumptions than SR or GR make.

          Here’s a nice list of failures when it comes to modern cosmological theory:

          http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/08/einstein-was-wrong-2/

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            I would simply inform you that you are a misinformed person because you should have known that there is not a SINGLE DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE OF SPACE CONTRACTION TILL DATE which Lorentz transformation predicts. Further Stephen Crothers has also shown GR as baseless through published papers in peer-reviewed journals. Please see his personal web-site for details.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            Yeah, did you see that exchange between Corda and Crothers? Corda actually came out and admitted there was no such thing as black holes.

            http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/03/17/epic-black-hole-dispute-between-scientists/

          • moto perpetuo

            ‘peer-reviewed’? Don’t make me laugh. Crothers is an international nuisance who has never been published by any credible journal and who spends most of his time writing unpleasant and aggressive emails to people immeasurably more knowledgeable than he is.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Truth is generally unpleasant but visit his web-site to see for yourself that his papers were published in double blind peer-reviewed journal. You are lying in this open forum.

          • moto perpetuo

            If you think a few publications in the crackpot-fest that is Progress in Physics counts. It’s a joke publication offering an outlet to those whose work is too nuts to get published in a serious journal. If you search for Crothers’ name in any of the citation databases you will find that he has never published a single peer-reviewed paper in a serious journal.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            I see, only “serious” journals that talk about things like invisible “dark” matter, strange matter, charms, etc.. etc.. have any value.

            Nice ad homs. Of course, you could simply respond to Crothers’ arguments, but that would just be absurd. It’s much easier to ridicule people instead of responding to their arguments.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Well said Michael. moto has not bothered to see Crothers web-site to see that he has actually published papers in peer-reviewed journals. Further he does not understand the value of the open challenge based on published papers. moto should have known that Progress in Physics is double blind peer-reviewed journal.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            I think he knows full well what he is doing. I find his behavior to be disgusting. It doesn’t matter though. Reality does not change itself to fit incorrect theories. Eventually GR and SR will be relegated to the trash heap where they belong because the truth cannot be covered up forever. In the long run, perhaps after we are both dead, truth will supplant the lies.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            I appreciate people who prefer to stand out of the crowd with the truth they know despite the fact the whole world believes otherwise. So Michael I appreciate you for knowing that SR & GR will eventually & ultimately be relegated to trash bin.

          • moto perpetuo

            Progress in Physics is a joke – nobody in the professional scientific community takes it faintly seriously.

            Crothers has been repeatedly proved wrong – the reason nobody bothers answering him these days is that he goes on parroting the same incorrect arguments however often he’s shown *why* he’s wrong.

            And if you think my behavior is disgusting, what would you think of a physicist whose idea of reasoned argument was calling another physicist a ‘shithead’? Because that’s what Stephen Crothers does when somebody who actually knows what he’s talking about takes the trouble to answer one of his letters. This is an unedited quote from a letter on Crothers’ website:

            “You have rightly earnt yourself a bloody nose, and if not
            for the distance between us I might well have visited you to deliver the
            causative blow, not because of your incompetent technical argument, but because
            your behavior has been that of an arsehole.
            It seems that you are doomed to live and die a conceited shithead, and,
            moreover, a conceited shithead who cannot do even elementary geometry.”

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            Yeah, and what did the guy say to him to provoke that kind of a response? Crothers is explicitly saying that he’s responding in that way, not because of the science, but because of the critic’s attitude. If you clicked through the link I provided, you can see Corda AGREEING with Crothers assertions, yet still saying he will not publish Crothers’ work because he doesn’t like Crothers’ ideology. It’s fucking absurd.

            And besides, arguing about who the bigger asshole is, or what credibility a journal has, ultimately has no bearing on the validity of Crothers’ arguments. His arguments are either valid or invalid, the reputation of the journal or his personal attitude has no bearing on that.

            I’ll shut up if you simply answer the first proof Crothers offers up against black holes, namely that r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

          • moto perpetuo

            I can disprove Crother’s so-called ‘proof’, but what’s the point? It requires a couple of pages of working, and you wouldn’t understand it, unless you’ve done five or six years of advanced math. Do you have a working knowledge of Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates? Well, you’ll need one to understand why Crothers is so completely wrong. It’s only arrogant amateurs who think that professional scientists should be able to employ a snappy soundbite to defend solutions which took decades to reach.

            For the record, Crother’s correspondent was completely courteous throughout the exchange. Crothers was the one who decided to employ foul language. And I quoted it because it speaks volumes about the character of the man, and his contempt for reasoned scientific discourse.

            His opinions are straightforwardly invalid and have been disproved dozens of times by better mathematicians. It is only his overweening arrogance which prevents him from seeing this.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            LOL – So prove it, and submit a paper on it. Crothers shows the mathematical proof of what r is. I don’t need to be familiar with Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates because that has absolutely no bearing on the definition of r, the so-called Schwarzschild radius. You are simply misdirecting with jargon to cover up the fact you have no fucking idea what r is.

            I can follow Crothers math quite easily. If I can follow the math, I’m sure a smart guy like you can follow him too. So just explain where Crothers goes wrong for me.

            I find it interesting that Dr. Corda didn’t bring up Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates when pressed on this point. Why do you think that might be?

          • moto perpetuo

            “LOL – So prove it, and submit a paper on it.”

            WHY would I do that? Waste effort on proving incorrect what the entire scientific profession knows to be incorrect? Amateur mathematicians seem to think that professional scientists have some sort of duty to prove them wrong when they write technically incompetent papers. If we wasted our time doing that there wouldn’t be any time left for actual research.

            “I can follow Crothers math quite easily. If I can follow the math, I’m sure a smart guy like you can follow him too. So just explain where Crothers goes wrong for me.”

            A stupendously arrogant statement. If you think you can understand the math of GR without specialist training, you haven’t understood anything at all. Here is a not particularly exhaustive list. As I have said repeatedly, this is a highly technical subject and the non-specialist who thinks he understands what’s going on really *doesn’t*:

            He misunderstands the nature of the Schwarzschild radius; he incorrectly states that 0<r<a is undefined on the Hilbert metric; he does not understand that the Schwarzschild metric defines two separate regions; and

            "I don't need to be familiar with Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates because that has absolutely no bearing on the definition of r"

            But it has a lot to do with where and why he is wrong. If you're not equipped to get involved in the argument, don't bother.

            "I'm not buying the crap you are selling. Go try and pull the wool over a dumber person's eyes."

            Look – the guy you're choosing to believe dropped out of his PhD. On the other side of the argument is virtually every professional astrophysicist, cosmologist and theoretical physicist in the world. You've backed a loser here. You probably want to be right, but you know you're not. I can see how that's frustrating, but sometimes you have to admit when you've made a mistake and move on.

          • moto perpetuo

            Incorrect, I have read a number of his articles and first looked at his website some years ago. PiP has zero credibility among professional scientists.

          • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

            Well Progress in Physics is a joke, Stephen is a crank without any credibility; then the simple question arises why so far physicists have failed to produce a single valid rebuttal to the papers published by Crothers. You need to bear in mind that a few physicists have tried & failed.

  • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

    I would like to keep you informed that the open challenge has been sent to almost all professors of physics & universities of the world and so far two retired professors of physics namely Jeremy Dunning-Davies of Hull University & Brian Cole of Columbia University accepted the challenge but both of them finally failed to show a single error in the papers on the basis of which open challenge has been put forward. Evidently accepting the alternative theory would reduce their degrees to trash & morally they will have to quit their jobs. Through the published papers it has been established that the adopted paradigm of physics is based on irrational & mathematical manipulations and on which the castles of Particle Physics, Big Bang Theory, Quantum Mechanics and almost all physics have been constructed. Now when all manipulations are mathematically, experimentally and theoretically exposed; it is very strange that main-stream physicists turn a blind eye to this exposure. It is a well known that physicists like Stephen Hawking, Neil Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku & many more are virtually selling atheism using the physics which is based on irrational & mathematical manipulations. The simple question is that are there no truth loving physicists on this planet and has the conscience of physicists died en-masse? This is a very genuine question and I have taken a vow that I will make truth prevail, come what may, and I request every genuine human being to intervene so that adopted paradigm of physics is out rightly rejected & correct philosophy of physics is adopted.
    The main-stream physicists have taken over all educational institutions, research institutions, scientific journals of the world and humanity is being deceived by adopting physics which is fundamentally incorrect.

  • Mohammad Shafiq Khan

    It is high time when humanity could look for scientific proofs of whether God exists or not. The million dollar question is; could there be substances which humans cannot physically see? Like soul, God etc. as existence or non-existence of God would define the purpose of human life or purposelessness of human life respectively. If we scientifically establish that there are no substances which humans cannot see then God, religion, a defined purpose of human life are simply irrelevant & senseless concepts. Under Big Bang paradigm there could not be any such substance besides there was no space for God to exist at the time & before the Big Bang and the question of God being responsible for Big Band does not arise. If we accept Big Bang paradigm then we should just close the chapter of God, religion & any well defined purpose of human life once for all times. Actually this has been my concern for several years with my whatever knowledge of physics I had during my education & whatever I could gather during the period of my concern.
    Thorough analysis revealed to me that the concept of space which was held from the time of Aristotle through Newton till 1905 was correct whereas concept of time from the time of Aristotle through Newton was incorrect. Einstein with the help of crude & incorrect mathematical manipulations (which have been exposed through published papers) distorted the state of existence of space which lead to Big Bang Theory. During the course of my research it was revealed that physical universe is the electromagnetic phenomena and light/radiation being an electromagnetic wave-motion and only substances with electromagnetic properties could be seen through light/radiation and all forces of nature including gravitation & nuclear forces are electromagnetic forces.The charge ( which humans can never know objectively) is the condition of some substance and this substance per se could never be known objectively and there have to be substances which humans can never see physically as such substances do not have any electromagnetic properties like soul & God.
    Humans are not only physical bodies but besides physical bodies humans have soul, substance responsible for life phenomenon, substance wherein the actions done by them are stored. Soul within the humans could be perceived by existence of the Ego, innate knowledge of the Creator and most importantly a very well defined book of innate moral law and the latter is with only humans as the species.The only task of all prophets was to convey the eternity of the soul and to warn humans that their afterlife will depend upon whether they adopted the book of innate moral law, which has been inscribed by the Creator in their souls, or not. Once the book of innate moral law is opened (this could be done by only genuine & philanthropist philosophers) the basic & fundamental principle of this book is that humans should live peacefully & justice should prevail in all human societies. Humans are living like everything other than humans because religions have been corrupted and this basic message was not conveyed.