What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAH... ahahaha....

Mental Patient Cavedon #755 "mpc755" wrote:


Cavedon, NOT "hanson" wrote:

===== Aether is defined as E=mc^2. ======

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha.. Cavy, have you lost your memory now
and you forgot that it was you, Cavedon, who posted:
||| Cavedon said: "Aether is defined as E=mc^2".

So, Cavy, either your mental problems are worse then I
suspected, or you are a devious mother ****er, knowing
that you were talking ****, and now you try to place your
own turds onto someone else... ahahahahaha....That will
work as little as your idiotic claim works, when you
||| Cavedon said: "Aether is defined as E=mc^2".

Now, Cavy, since Marvin & Paul Draper have whupped
your fat ass with due diligence & proper vengeance, &
your only supporter seems to be kike Jacob Navia, who
is so stupid that he accusd Porat, the Israeli Zionist, to
be "Anti-Semitic"....
http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT

Cavy, let me guide you back onto the path of righteousness
again, & forgive you that you tried to be an intellectual whore.

In all likelihood, when you wrote in your preceding post:
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its
mass diminishes by L/c2." [ = E/c^2 in modern denotation]
you had in your mind the vision and speculation that in
Step 1: Matter converts to Energy as per E = mc^2... &
Step 2: (the Cavy step): that the gained Energy of step 1
then converts, per Cavy, into Aether per: A = E*c^2... or
"displaces it"... Is that what you are trying to say, Cavy,
but you just haven't found the right words for it so far?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles
of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations
of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of aether.

Matter is condensations of aether.

DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A.
EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish; however, the matter which no
longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists,
as aether.

Matter evaporates into aether.

As matter converts to aether it expands in three dimensional space.
The physical effects this transition has on the neighboring aether and
matter is energy.

Mass is conserved. Energy is conserved.

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

When you watch a video of an atomic bomb explosion you are witnessing
the physical effects matter converting to aether has on the
neighboring matter and aether. The physical effects are energy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_oueK1OQYA

Aether is the base material of matter. Aether is the base material,
period.

Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined
throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of
individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.

This can be interpret to mean it can not be known if ether consists of
particles or not.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the
idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as
consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
tracked through time."

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity."

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with
the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
applied to it."

Since aether is the base material and it can not be known if aether
consists of particles or not, there isn't anything aether is made of
besides aether itself.

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

In article , says...

On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:25:28 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
... | Science requires
an objective and utterly honest person. |

That's the reason not to like that person. Being utterly honest he calls
a spade a spade and a ****wit a ****wit, which upset the ****wits.

Ironically, I'm in a situation right now (and once again!) where honesty,
ethics and competence are not well regarded. :-D

| Science requires money, and large sums of it. The people who provide
the | money are ignorant of science.

No politician is utterly honest either. Kissing strange babies to get
elected and shaking Gaddafi's hand is the epitome of dishonesty.

My experience is that it is some guy in the government, often the
military. All in all, my experience has been that the military reviewers
are more tech savy than the company management, who's attitude is "I
don't know what the hell was in your paper, but the Air Force Guys loved
it, so you get funding."

The people who get the money are often*
| not the honest ones, but the ones who promise the highest return on |
investment - that is, promise a preconceived conclusion. |
| Those who get the money tend to be dishonest. Those that don't get the
| money starve and end up working at McDonald's.

Take up engineering, it's well paid and one can be honest.

I did, and you can't always be honest. 30 years ago I could, but not in
today's environment. They make a big deal about ethics in engineering,
and it's because it is so much CHEAPER to shave a little (some times a
hell of a lot!) off public safety here and there.

I'd elaborate, but the company's idea of "ethics" is not exposing their
unethical behavior.

|
| * Not always, but often. As a grad student, I worked with some wonder
| researchers in both private industry and acadamia, and some principle
| investigators had a talent and really mastered the ART of obtaining |
funding. One professor not only secured funding for himself, but for his
| soon to be out of work fellow profs as well! His resume was like a
book | with publications, and his proposals worked like an intricate
network of | inter-related research.
|
| As a PI in private research, I've obtained government funding too, but
I | was not an artist at it like my mentor. I was simply better than the
| other people asking for funding - mostly because I really learned the
| material in school and never cheated in my entire life. |
If an engineer cheats, people die. If an academic is caught cheating the
paper goes in the waste bin.

True, but the cheaters get the jobs and the money. Honest ethical guys
are a pain in the ass and make the bottom line smaller.

Serious. This last week I wouldn't sign off on the engineering paper
because it flatly was wrong, and some other engineer said he would, even
though there is a problem. He said it boldly and right to my face. He
said his odds of being caught are pretty damned small, and I was stupid
not to sign it because the company will just get him or someone else to
sign it if I won't. There is no shortage of people who will sign off bad
engineering. Management gives lip service to ethics - I'll get a lateral
promotion and will not be in a position to sign off on engineering soon.

And he's right. I expect I'll have that duty taken from me very soon.

There was on job I was training for 20 years ago, and they asked me about
the product. I said it violated federal regulations and I quoted the regs
chapter and verse and showed the design didn't even come close to meeting
it. I was out of that program from that moment on.

As you say, honesty and ethics are not endearing qualities in today's
culture. 50 years ago, yes. Now? No. The words they used were "career
limiting".


This is the story of democracy. You have no Lord/s.

In article , says...

Just passing by, reading a few posts here and there. Here are a few
comments to the quoted.

* * * * Example 1 (contrary example)

* * * * I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. SNIP... Goodbye time dilation!

Pendulum clocks do not operate in inertial frames (devoid of grav.
field). Pendulum clocks work on earth because of the grav. field and
this the surface of the earth is non-inertial hence SR does not
apply, does not conclude.


hehehe........ummmmmmmmm.................good point.

But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring, whatever.

TD is still flushed.


* * * * Example 2 (proper analysis)

* * * * Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR.

* * * * I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them.
Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks
back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time
with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant

Insignificant? Do the math. There will be a non-zero "de-synch" as
predicted by SR(+clock hypothesis) and as observed by actual
experiments.


Obviously it is lost on you that we can maintain v for any period of time we like so as to make the 3 periods of
acceleration (away, back and slow down) insignificant.

The alleged TD due to v will totally overshadow the 3 acceleration bits.



Most people think that time dilation
means that time is actually passing at different rates

Yes, some people *interpret* it like that.

Relativity itself
states that this is "apparent", not actual.

No, Relativity does not state that. Some people state/call/interpret
it like that. Relativity simply gives you its predicted
VALUE(s); it gives you the values on the clocks and is independent of
how you call this.


Oh golly, you must have missed it the first time. See here at the 11:40 mark -

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4962912264988#

Here's 'stein's derivation for you. Simple Pythagoras Theorem.


* * * * The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly,


Again, NO, the theory ( Relativity) does not make such claims. Some
authors simply *describe* it that way. 10 20 no matter if you call
this real, apparent, slow, fast, different rate etc.

Again, see the video.


Here's what I wrote -

"The conditions of force and mass dictating both clock's periods has been the same, as per relativity's 1st
postulate, so 20 ticks of one clock is exactly the same as 20 tics of the other. Most people think that time dilation
means that time is actually passing at different rates from one observer to the other but it is not. Relativity itself
states that this is "apparent", not actual. Yet some people claim there is no universal time, which is wrong."


For "REAL" TD to hold, it needs to contradict the 1st postulate.

There is no such thing as TD - there is only absolute time as measured in our own FofR. Who cares about the way
time "appears" to pass somewhere else anyway?

All of this is the bull**** needed to make light leave origin at c and arrive at a relative destination at c
without slowing down/speeding up. We have no aether so we merely throw the Lorentz/Einstein Hack into the gaping void
known as the vacuum - pathetic. What a fool you need to be to blindly accept that without so much as a Spok eyebrow!

All bull****.

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
whatever.
.
TD is still flushed.

Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a child?

Am 04.09.2011 19:37, schrieb Brad Guth:
On Sep 3, 6:09 pm, Thomas wrote:
Am 03.09.2011 18:38, schrieb GSS:

Occasional dissidents come with own ideas, but get no audience. Why?
Well, who wanted to listen? The mainstream 'high-priests' do not want
and do not need and their staff is carefully selected for 'flexibility'
(smart, corrupt, brainwashed). Those do not dare to listen and endlessly
reject every dissident word.

TH

The mainstream status-quo specifically trains and hires FUD-masters,
and otherwise has an unlimited devout army of mostly public funded
brown-nosed clowns that always claim being Atheist that only happen to
act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, and otherwise they always claim
being politically independent when in fact they strictly follow the
money that has the fewest strings attached.

Therefore publishing whatever as offering any better interpretation or
that of a new or improved deductive formulated theory, simply doesn't
get noticed.

Outsiders are also systematically banished and/or excluded (aka
blackballed), as well as the mainstream goes out of its way in order
to discredit any possible threat to their mainstream status-quo.
Mafia, Hitler and Jesus/Semite freaks pretty much have to function as
a borg collective, because they each have little if anything else to
work with.


Science is important and should not be subject to political cabal. If
these people exist and somehow act like you say, than they do greater
harm to people than wars! Science is what develops all these little
goodies, from pharmacy to cell phones.

If any of these sciences is derailed for unethical reasons, than these
developments are not beneficial any more or do not happen at all. so
people don't get cured, because these cures were not developed. Possible
machines are still unknown, because somebody does not want them.

Personally I think, the so called 'Growing Earth' theory is correct.
Only - this subject seem to be buried very deep and nobody is allowed to
discuss it. But it is by no means justified to silence the outsiders,
because the subject seems to be important and has far reaching
implications. The method is to reject, insist on unplausible alternative
models, ignore evidence, deny critique, silence dissidents.

Even physical violence against critics seems possible, or application of
secret operations to discredit unwanted persons.

All this comes at a price: this is the loss of new ideas and
developments, because the unwanted thinkers than had to think about how
to escape from their 'Gulag' (prison, mental hospital, army unit, debt,
marriage, bread job ...) and not about new little goodies.

TH

On Sep 4, 7:52*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Sep 3, 6:38*pm, GSS wrote:





Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.

Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
"Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.

[Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
Einstein's opponents? (...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
"The day will come where everything about this theory will be
abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]

It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing *complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
sustained by mistaken beliefs.

1. *Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics.

This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

2. *Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.

This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

-------------------------
you ddint innovate much:
manythings you said above were climes before you
evn by me Y.Porat

for instance
i said *it much *shorter and bluntly
for *instance:
''one of the *greatest *disasyers that happened to 'modern physics was
that dunb mathematicians *that understand only mathematics
took over physics !!
physics is far of being only mathematics
moreover *only current amthematics
can cope only very little with real physics problems
just a few days ago
i published here a short article called:

'not all particles can be defined by
mathematical formula ''
and i am in middle of explaing it

i claomed long ago that
CURVED SPACE TIME IS A HUGE *WAIST *OF HUMAN RESOURCES !
SPACE IS NOTHING
AND HAVE NO PROPERTIES EXCEPT
HOSTING MASS !!
insteadof that
i suggested the CIRCLON
abery basic particle that moves naturally
in curved paths
not because something is forcing it
but that is as 'it was born *(a
new basic *paradigm that has to repalce
curved space
2
i claimes the first time in history of physics that
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL * PHYSICS !!
that is aborting immediately the
W of Z particles
the only 3 or 4 Quarks *with 90 percent mass
as builders of the Proton *(Neutron )
i found and proved that the photon has
nonzero mass (about exp-90 * Kilograms)

2
yet you have to be selective

SR *(unlike GR !!) is right *!!!
it is based on the fact that
as velocity becomes bigger and bigger
it becomes more difficult to *add more velocity !!
TIME is not absolute:

you *have no time without movement !!
so
time is nothing but relative comparison
of motion realtive to some
CHOSEN MOTION REFERENCE * * * * 11
iow
there is no 'absolute time !!!
and by that Einstein *is right
including all that is acociated with movement !!!
3
i developed a new model of the
Atom and nucleus
much of it cannot be described and defined
only by * only current *mathematics !!!

copyrights of
Y.Porat
----------------------

so
''the devil is in the details
and you cant say that all modrn physics
is wrong !!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The judgement that Einstein was wrong is where science went wrong.
He ends up being right. Einstein's opponents will be seen to be wrong.

In article om, says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
whatever.
.
TD is still flushed.

Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a child?


It sounds like you suffer from the dopler effect.

Since you are a fraud and have snipped what you don't like, I will remind you that my example had a point traveling
directly at us i.e. no Doppler, idiot.

You are an unashamed fan boy without a clue.

In article , says...

The judgement that Einstein was wrong is where science went wrong.
He ends up being right. Einstein's opponents will be seen to be wrong.


Will that be the way it "seems', "appears" or "is"?

On Sep 5, 10:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Sep 4, 7:52*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Sep 3, 6:38*pm, GSS wrote:

Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.

Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
"Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.

[Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
Einstein's opponents? (...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
"The day will come where everything about this theory will be
abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]

It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing *complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
of many intellectuals?

Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.

Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
sustained by mistaken beliefs.

1. *Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
points on the surface of earth. With current technological
advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
shift in fundamental physics.

This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

2. *Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
a physical entity.

This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
"curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves..
The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
'graphical' template.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

-------------------------
you ddint innovate much:
manythings you said above were climes before you
evn by me Y.Porat

for instance
i said *it much *shorter and bluntly
for *instance:
''one of the *greatest *disasyers that happened to 'modern physics was
that dunb mathematicians *that understand only mathematics
took over physics !!
physics is far of being only mathematics
moreover *only current amthematics
can cope only very little with real physics problems
just a few days ago
i published here a short article called:

'not all particles can be defined by
mathematical formula ''
and i am in middle of explaing it

i claomed long ago that
CURVED SPACE TIME IS A HUGE *WAIST *OF HUMAN RESOURCES !
SPACE IS NOTHING
AND HAVE NO PROPERTIES EXCEPT
HOSTING MASS !!
insteadof that
i suggested the CIRCLON
abery basic particle that moves naturally
in curved paths
not because something is forcing it
but that is as 'it was born *(a
new basic *paradigm that has to repalce
curved space
2
i claimes the first time in history of physics that
NO MASS - THE ONLY MASS-
NO REAL * PHYSICS !!
that is aborting immediately the
W of Z particles
the only 3 or 4 Quarks *with 90 percent mass
as builders of the Proton *(Neutron )
i found and proved that the photon has
nonzero mass (about exp-90 * Kilograms)

2
yet you have to be selective

SR *(unlike GR !!) is right *!!!
it is based on the fact that
as velocity becomes bigger and bigger
it becomes more difficult to *add more velocity !!
TIME is not absolute:

you *have no time without movement !!
so
time is nothing but relative comparison
of motion realtive to some
CHOSEN MOTION REFERENCE * * * * 11
iow
there is no 'absolute time !!!
and by that Einstein *is right
including all that is acociated with movement !!!
3
i developed a new model of the
Atom and nucleus
much of it cannot be described and defined
only by * only current *mathematics !!!

copyrights of
Y.Porat
----------------------

so
''the devil is in the details
and you cant say that all modrn physics
is wrong !!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The judgement that Einstein was wrong is where science went wrong.
He ends up being right. Einstein's opponents will be seen to be wrong.

--------------
he was right about SR (E=m c^2 etc )
yet
he was not right about
curved space time!!

sapce is nothing
and has no properties except hosing mass

see the ''Circlon' idea
that has to come instead

ATB
Y.Porat
--------------------------