This website has not been updated since Sept 2014, and has been replaced by new website, ChurchOfPhysics.org.

Why?

My years of notes on this old website has led to my Upcoming Book, "Toppling Relativity: My Struggle with the Church of Physics." Book's website ChurchOfPhysics.org is my new physics website and will be kept updated leading up to and after the book.  "

Again - The Below now becomes my old physics website and will not be updated.


 

This is Part II of website. Click here to go to Part I.

Here is the physics paper (in PDF Format) that this website is about.

Part II deals with the issues in a wider sense and discusses:

Thomas Kuhn, The Messy Business called Physics, and the Powers-That-Be who Run the Current Mess. Also examination of some of the arguments proactive physicist-leaders have offered about the nature of Science, Religion and God; Jokes (or attempts at humor) regarding today's physics and physicist-leaders included.

Go to Part I. Part I gives the physics Specifics: Points out that Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Derivation was based on Unstated Assumptions, Invalidates that "Derivation" with an actual counter-example, gives correct space and time equations, and points out a desktop experiment whose result would end Relativity.

 

Physics Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg, the devout worshipper of Special Relativity, and other "Believers" With their blind faith and their heads buried in the sand, they have set physics on a disastrous collision course with reality! Thomas Kuhn understood physicists far better than physicists understand Special Relativity!

Jan 2014: U.S. $7 million prize offer made to Yuri Milner to help bring about basic testing of Special Relativity
June 2014: Reminder to Yuri Milner, and a request to correct statement on Dark Matter at Breakthrough Prize site

Aug/Sept 2013: We have initiated our Plan B. We can't fight "The Believers" alone and have now resorted to contacting and appealing for help from a wider group who are highly capable of looking at matters objectively, including professors in various disciplines, and others who have the requisite expertise. Plan B is based on this reality: on our side we have a valid counter-example to relativity's derivation, and a desktop experiment that can end relativity; the relativity-worshippers in the physics establishment have only physics authoritarianism and evasion on their side.

The new-found anti-God mission of physics, led by Steven Weinberg reducing physics to being a means of propagation of the highly subjective and authoritarian views of those in charge!

COMIC RELIEF— The below headings include Jokes (or attempts at humor)

The OPERA Debacle On how Experimenters might be able to get neutrinos back under light speed, without dumping GPS!

Brian Greene, Strings, Cats, and the Theory of Everything; with guest appearance by Ed Witten

Brian Greene Encore his upcoming book "The Political Universe," and Exploiting Higgs; with guest appearance by Gordon Kane, and an introduction to Greene's political "Papa"

Lawrence Krauss  his war against logic, his magic show, and his upcoming movie; with guest appearances by Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson

Steven Weinberg’s "scientific method" gives us a new universe Only one-sixth of the universe existed prior to modern-physics, the rest has been created by relativity-worshipping physicists; with guest appearances by Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin, and Michio Kaku

Michio Kaku and his Multiverse comedy; with guest appearances by Stephen Hawking and Andrei Linde

Lee Smolin and the Doubly/Triply Complicated approaches to Special Relativity; with an appeal to Perimeter Director Neil Turok

Sean Carroll the physicist who takes orders and censors inconvenient truths. And he cracks down on "lazy scientists"

Nations with Crackpot physicists: ex-Soviet and China. Some of their physicists seem curious about this website means they could test special relativity for themselves in the manner suggested, and then it is all over

Thanks in advance to anyone and everyone who take on the burden of helping settle this matter, and thanks to Thomas Kuhn

To the students of physics

 

Physics Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg, the devout worshipper of Special Relativity, and other "Believers" With their blind faith and their heads buried in the sand, they have set physics on a disastrous collision course with reality! Thomas Kuhn understood physicists far better than physicists understand Special Relativity!

Physicists' faith in Special Relativity (Einstein's 1905 theory) is akin to blind religious faith and belief, thus I refer to them as "The Believers."  The Believers would be a huge list, but I only short-list six  physicists who have been most vocal, aggressive, and outspoken in this propaganda about the claimed objective nature of physics, and taken on the public role of leaders or representatives.

These are the 6 physicists ("The Believers") who Run the Current Physics Mess:

Along with leader Steven Weinberg, the other 5 names are (in alphabetical order, no other reason for who is named first) Sean Carroll, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and Lawrence Krauss.

 

Steven Weinberg's Physics Nobel Prize sets him above the other 5, and makes him the leader. Yes, there are other Physics Nobel Prize winners alive today, but they mostly lead relatively reclusive lives (as in preferring to be quiet researchers rather than media celebrities).  Steven Weinberg wants to be the public celebrity who represents physics on the public stage and has become very media-savvy . This official line is used by the publisher to promote his book Lake Views: "Weinberg, considered by many to be the preeminent theoretical physicist alive today..." Among the 6, no one is as vigorously outspoken as Weinberg, and that further makes him the accepted public leader of physics at current time. 

Also, what sets Weinberg over the other 5, is his extensive knowledge beyond physics. His readings of works from fields beyond just "hard sciences" gives him an amazingly wide knowledge base, and in addition he has excellent rhetoric and articulation skills. We may not yet have a "theory of everything" but in Weinberg we have someone who is close to being an "expert on everything!" No one in biology can match his understanding of Evolution, he is a Shakespearian expert too, and his knowledge of theology is top of the world because he actually reads books most would never even have known existed, until Weinberg informs us — such as the Archbishop of (whatever) and some book he authored in the 15th century. Neither Newton nor Einstein were so well read and had such expertise across multiple fields! Weinberg does not limit his battles to physics issues, his vast knowledge allows him to indulge in tough attacks on groups across the spectrum not just academic departments from philosophy to theology, but to groups out there who are doing things he does not approve of (such as people attending church). So let us take on the tough guy and great master Weinberg with full force, and watch him and his disciples decimate our foolishness to pieces! We are using "full force" because anything lesser would be an insult to a giant and Great Master like Steven Weinberg.

Yes, we will attack Steven Weinberg with "full force," but first let us build a base of what the issues are, and what Great Master Weinberg's stand on the issues is. Weinberg will likely not defend and we are not counting on his appearance.  We are appealing to objective thinkers out there, and Weinberg is far from objective (details below and in Part I). Unlike Newton and Einstein, Weinberg takes a more political approach (details below and in Part I), and he wants to suppress and not dignify or acknowledge what he cannot answer. And if he really is "preeminent theoretical physicist alive today" then physics is in a sad state today:  philosophically Weinberg has no idea what the nature of time is and has no interest in this foundational question; he is skeptical of Occam's Razor, loves abstruse and complicated applied mathematics and its increasing domination of physics, and seems to have a disdain for simple explanations; mathematically he is no idea what a correct derivation is even after specifics are pointed out to him, or he simply chooses to ignore matters that would point out problems with his favorite theories  (details below and in Part I).

Who will pay most for Weinberg's authoritarianism, blind faith and vanity: graduate students,  post-docs, and professors who, thanks to super-star Weinberg, his star colleagues, and the journals that they control with an iron fist have not been allowed to become aware of this specific issue regarding the shaky foundation on which modern physics stands. If there was no authoritarian censorship and physicists had been allowed to know that the 1905 relativity derivation was invalid and there existed an alternative explanation of the speed of light postulate, some of them might have been chosen to pause and think, rather than blindly follow Weinberg's church of "Absolute Faith in Special Relativity."

The current physics leadership's habit of burying their heads, and their journals' heads, in the sand when faced with refutation of the foundations has put physics on course to a devastating collision with reality — a Big Bang is imminent!

Professor Lawrence Krauss, one of the above 6 "Believers" who share a common and absolute faith in relativity, recently (after a thorough study, I am sure) stated that Philosophy "hasn't progressed in two thousand years." Well, it has, and one example of great progress is physicist-turned-philosopher's Thomas Kuhn's famous 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn's book studied how science and scientists actually function (displacing how they claim to function). A brief introduction to Kuhn's work is here (Guardian newspaper article).

Kuhn noted that during periods of "normal science" (which this period in physics is) scientists primarily strive to preserve the accepted theories rather than do experiments that could refute them, and sometimes choose to ignore anomalies that go against these foundational theories. Kuhn stated that the other way scientists deal with anomalies is to devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their foundational theories — and conforming to Kuhn, physicists have done this with General Relativity. (The equations of Special Relativity, however, stand in the original 1905 form).

Professor Steven Weinberg has always considered philosophy and social sciences to be a nuisance whenever these fields discuss the nature of science, and he names some adversaries of science in below book.

Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries by Steven Weinberg

One of the "cultural adversaries" who Weinberg attacks in the book is, of course, Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn was neither "cultural" (by any meaning of the word) nor an "adversary" of science. He correctly (in my opinion) pointed out that in periods of "normal science" physicists are not objective, but work to preserve major theories by any means (including selective experimentation). And even Steven Weinberg seems to have left hints of his doubts about what physics is — if you examine the cover of Weinberg's above book under ultraviolet light you see this title:

Fessing Up: Science By Hook or By Crook — Saving Relativity and our other Favorite Theories by Using Selective Experimentation

Steven Weinberg in his article The Revolution That Didn't Happen dismisses Kuhn’s work: "What does bother me on rereading Structure and some of Kuhn's later writings is his radically sceptical conclusions about what is accomplished in the work of science. And it is just these conclusions that have made Kuhn a hero to the philosophers, historians, sociologists, and cultural critics who question the objective character of scientific knowledge." In the article Weinberg also dismisses Kuhn's "paradigm shift" and the possibility of "incommensurability" between paradigms.

Weinberg's article The Revolution That Didn't Happen should actually be titled  The Revolution That We Stopped, because stopping those who would topple their paradigm and defending their physics theories is what the main aim of "The Believers" during periods of "normal science" is. As Kuhn stated,  their aim is to preserve their beliefs, rather than refute the theories in their paradigm. The 6 Believers named above are Kuhnian physicists who, as Kuhn stated, are not objective.

Was Einstein a Kuhnian physicist? No, and that made him very different from his peers. He would look to question and refute the foundations, rather than conform to his Kuhnian peers who worked to preserve, extend and build on the foundations. Einstein kept trying to refute Quantum Mechanics (which had become a firm part of the paradigm of his time). One year before his death he even began to question the correctness of his own relativity theory, which for other physicists (i.e. the Kuhnian physicists doing "normal science") had become a religion.

Thomas Kuhn's contemporary, Paul Feyerabend, went far beyond Kuhn's gentler analysis, calling science the "most dogmatic religious institution," and he seems to at least have been correct when it comes to The Believers and Special Relativity (Einstein’s 1905 theory/scripture).

Physicists (including the 6 professors listed above and others) have found faith and formed The Church of Absolute Faith in Special Relativity. These relativity-worshippers cannot be reasoned with objectively they won't listen to the reality that the equations they are are worshipping are incorrect equations, which are based on an incorrect derivation, and they won't do a simple innovative desktop experiment to test their Faith. These priests do not like innovative experiments that could contradict their worshipped theory and they like to play safe by doing the same-old public-show selective testing. In today's physics, we have the example of a physics journal issuing a Fatwa for questioning physics' 1905 relativity scripture and thus insulting their Faith, and this specific act has Steven Weinberg's full support. (We use "Fatwa" as a term for religious "decree" by the relativity-worshipping zealots and fundamentalists  referee and editor of the journal; they issued a lifetime ban without finding even one specific fault in a submitted paper).

If Special Relativity's equations fall then so does the so-called "spacetime" which rests on its equations. With no spacetime remaining, general relativity, quantum field theory and related foundations which form the basics of much of today’s physics will be largely gibberish. And everything that is built on these theories will be gobbledygook too (and yes, the 2014-blockbuster Inflation Theory will become a "trick" too) . Thus we would have both a Kuhn-style "paradigm shift" and the the accompanying "incommensurability." The paradigm shift and incommensurability occurs because the new theory limits down to Newton's equations but NOT to Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity equations. So there is no transition (smooth or otherwise) from today's relativity-based physics. Again, Special Relativity and its "spacetime" concept  is very deeply imbedded into the foundations of modern physics and this means that any theories that are built on relativity (and for 100 years physics' best minds have been building on relativity's equations and its concept of "spacetime" ) will ALL be wrong if "spacetime" falls. For the 6 physicists listed above (The Believers) the news would be devastating. It would have the terrible effect of making much of the contributions The Believers have made during their lifetime null and void — most or all (depending on the individual) of their papers would become immediate rubbish. So perhaps it is only human for them to try to avoid, or postpone as much as they can, the day that much their life's work will suddenly be gibberish. Unfortunately, that day is just one desktop experiment away!

Any larger effects of our paper? The entire business of renormalization, invented to escape the appearance of actual infinities in nature, needs to be seriously revisited (and Quantum Field Theory experts such as Weinberg and other physicists can laugh at that too, for now)! In fact a highly respected establishment physicist has a hand-written page with very interesting thoughts; not that interesting though, because his life's work assumes that relativity and much of accepted physics is correct. We won't mention his name because much of his life's work will be instant gibberish too if relativity falls; means we can forget about an endorsement, and instead can only expect mockery from him,  and we have had enough of that over the last 8 years, this being written around September 2013, :-) ! Nevertheless, here is the page, and we have not seen any other mainstream physicist make such a note about infinity (our ignorance most likely, we don't read too many physics papers because of their abstruse mathematics, and more importantly, because they are based on relativity's spacetime)! And don't forget to notice the page's elegant color combination! Note that this is page 38 of an interesting 63 pages handwritten document. I am charging US$ 100 for the whole document (i.e. for the location), even though the document is someone else's and is available for free on the internet. I am being generous because I could easily have charged $1000 :-) Finder's fee!

If you don't want to pay I have narrowed down your search by already revealing this: "highly respected establishment physicist"! If you don't want to pay and can't locate the document on the internet (even though it is there), well ... sharpen your search skills, or consult a smart and internet-savvy fifth-grader.

We don't need a job with the department, so there is no need to study and build on wrong theories and their increasingly grand and abstruse mathematics; congratulations on all the that applied mathematics, it sure keeps physicists busy trying to compete with each other in quickly mastering the abstruse mathematics that everyone keeps piling up. The tallest skyscraper in the world consists of these floors of abstruse applied mathematics, all so beautifully constructed by physicists. Once spacetime falls it will be interesting to see what remains of this great structure.
Ignorant and thinking it is still 1905, are we totally stupid? That is us! Professor Weinberg and his fellow physics experts are going to show us how stupid we really are, make us the laughing stock, and then we will need a cave to hide in! The Himalayas have lots of caves, and with the planet's most enlightened meditators as fellow cave-dwellers, we will be in good company.  Stone Age wasn't as bad as people think :-)

Okay...back to attacking and refuting Weinberg...

Professor Steven Weinberg took on the responsibility of leadership and went to war, leading the charge against those who would question the claim that science and scientists act in a purely objective manner. The so-called "Science Wars" were seemingly, at least as the involved physicists claim, won by scientists because they showed science works "scientifically" i.e. it is an objective and logical search for truths that already exist out there etc. (fine, someone can dispute and say that is not a great description of what the wars were about, but my main point is what follows). Fact is that science can and should work that way, but in any discipline how it (ideally or normally) works can be over-ridden by how those currently in power allow it to work! To think that if politicians, propagandists and other "bad people" (a phrase by Professor Steven Weinberg) took power in science they would become "good people" (phrase by Weinberg) and act "scientifically" and not work to "suppress" truths (according to their political and propaganda needs) is to deny reality and claim some miraculous transforming power of science! Steven Weinberg may believe in such miracles, but does he have any evidence for such a claim? If not, then did Steven Weinberg and his colleagues really win the "science wars"?

I emailed Professor Steven Weinberg stating that (as above) his "science wars" argument seems to have a flaw.
Again, in any field those in power can influence and control how the field functions. Indeed, history shows that entire countries can go from "brutal dictatorship" to "gentler forms of leadership" and vice-versa, depending on the humans who are in power and factors such as their success in propaganda etc. Weinberg has not explained his assumption that the functioning of science is immune from being dependent on how the humans who are currently in power in science behave. In science you could have a "brutal intellectual dictatorship" where the authorities offer two choices: "Our way or the highway!" In these circumstances, those wanting to be scientists can either choose to work and research on what the authorities in science have dictated to be the acceptable paths, or they can go form their own research project but this choice will rule out a paying-research-job in science. Further, such dictators would also prevent research challenging their own conclusions from ever being published in Their Journals.

It seems Steven Weinberg never gives up on coming up with arguments to support his claim that science is a unique and above the rest of academics. Weinberg has a new argument that Science is unique in that it realizes that even the greatest scientists make mistakes.  Fact is that even in mythology across the world, "Gods" (say Greek Gods) and their sons and daughters are shown to make mistakes, and mythology recognizes them as mistakes. I put that example because we know who Steven Weinberg likes to target! But in other academic fields too exists the realization that even the best mistakes exists; Weinberg offers no evidence to support that science is unique in this, he just offers a wishful conclusion. And any who read news articles should know that even in non-academic professions people realize that the best make mistakes. For example, read some articles in business magazines, where you have the most successful entrepreneurs who formed great enterprises that gave employment to lots of people, listing the mistakes they made along the way!

But Steven Weinberg's favorite targets have always been God and religion.

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999:
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Are people good and bad by birth; is it a basic inborn nature based on which we can refer to people being one or the other? Let us assume they are (for the sake of Weinberg's above quote).

Okay, let us make a list of wars and people killed in wars. How many were over religion? So Weinberg's argument falls based on evidence. Crusades, religion-riots, jihads are all good rhetoric to criticize religion. Race propaganda — not involving religion — too played a big part in people doing evil. But by far, the biggest part of people killings were in wars where religion was not a cause. Objectively, Weinberg has no argument, because the numbers are simply against him. If he wants I can make the table, but I think he knows that he is not being anywhere near objective. His above quote is that of an angry man, and anger and objectivity do not make good partners.

What about  the evil of crime, say theft? Sure, the religious books command: "Thou must steal!"

What about other crimes? Here is a what a transcript from a court drama involving Steven Weinberg could look like:
Attorney for the Defense: "Your Honor, my client is a good man. He would not have done such evil if it were not for this religious book he started reading. And I have Physics Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg to give expert testimony that the book made him do evil. Convict religion, release my client. Professor Weinberg will now take the stand and explain it all."

Religion is traditionally inherited from the parents. Most people follow religion only in that they observe religious hoildays (who doesn't like a holiday, some may indulge in religious activity on the day). But religion is not the overwhelming issue in their lives. Livelihood, family and the usual daily things are what are the center of their lives. Therefore, for almost all people who have a religion, the claim that religion is a contagion that makes people do "evil" is ludicrous! A more serious issue for discussion might be whether many of these religious holidays are (at least today) any more than commercial gift-exchanging events.

How does the traditional God-worshipping church compare to Weinberg's Church of Absolute Faith in Special Relativity? The latter's evil-doings of suppressing truth has ruined lives of many physicists (not yet ruined, but imminent); it is arguable that  physics' truth-suppressing and Special-Relativity-Worshipping church is quite "evil".

Steven Weinberg is absolutely certain there is no God. But he is also aware of physics' Uncertainty Principle, so he has a Plan B. He has been secretly building a ray gun that can kill God if it turns out that God does exist, and he will  then triumphantly address the world, with all the leaders of today's physics gathered around him, and give this one-liner: "Who's laughing now?" (Joke ends. Note that the Uncertainty Principle deals with properties of particles and though it would apply to the particles in the brain, it does not follow from the Uncertainty Principle that no one can ever be absolutely certain of anything!)

The Believers' extreme Kuhnian behavior — unshakeable faith in and worship of Special Relativity's equations, and their "iron fist" rule over physics leaves no place for objectivity. Einstein would have cracked down on these physics authorities and their tactics of suppressing a counter-example and using selective experimentation to save their own life’s work. Unfortunately he is not here now! So we move to "Plan B" and look beyond the relativity-worshipping physicists to find thinkers who can and will examine the matter objectively and are open to the possibility of refuting a foundational theory.

 

Jan 2014: U.S. $7 million prize offer made TO Yuri Milner to help bring about basic testing of Special Relativity

January 2014 - Sincere and respectful letter to Yuri Milner to help save physics

Subject: U.S. $7 million Prize offer TO Yuri Milner to help bring about basic testing of Special Relativity

To Yuri Milner. (By Email, Fax, Fedex, and Internet Posting)

Dear Esteemed Mr. Milner,

We write this letter with the highest respect for your support of the world of physics, and make this sincere offer and request.

I offer U.S. $7 million as prize money to you for a most important contribution you can make to physics.

Let me get straight to the details.

Special Relativity has been far less tested than Quantum Mechanics. Even Einstein's own suggested platform-and-traincar experiment, which can now be done in table-top form, has not been done.

Time dilation and length contraction are the two central consequences Special Relativity. Forget testing the accuracy of the Length Contraction equation, it has not even been tested that length contraction happens. To put it another way, length contraction has never been observed, and over a hundred years have passed since it was theorized.

I am ready to send you a check of U.S.$ 7 million just for your agreeing to look into arranging any of the above specific confirmations of special relativity, with the condition that the check will become your property only after execution of the task. (Unfortunately, the check will have to be post-dated because my present bank balance is a tiny bit below that amount). You will have to arrange for the cost of experiment (either by paying for it out of your pocket or influencing an organization into doing the experiment). The U.S.$ 7 million check will be your property and cashable as soon as at least one of these is done with your involvement (in some way):
1)Desktop version of Einstein's Platform-and-Traincar Experiment
2)Experimental test of Length Contraction.

It seems to be gross negligence on part of physicists not to test these most basic predictions of their foundational theory. Physicists have assumed Special Relativity to be true (without full experimentation) and built much of modern physics based on this assumption. You do not have to agree that there has been any gross negligence, but you must agree that experimental confirmation must continue to be important in physics.

Will there be money in the bank when it comes time for you to cash the check? Where will I get the money? Well, I already have part of the money in the bank. But I also have a plan to make substantial money off of the results of either of these experiments. Out of that, $7 million will be yours.

A proper and objective experimental testing of special relativity, rather than selective testing which has been done so far, is needed. To justify selective testing and explain their failure to do above two experiments, there has been a claim widely published and circulated by physicists (a public relations antic, as Paul Feyerabend would say) that if postulates are true then it has been mathematically derived that special relativity's equations are true too. This claim is illogical, false and is just a wishful statement that is based on blind faith, and we have a counter-example to prove this; it is "blind" faith because it requires believers to close their eyes to reality.

Physics Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg and his special-relativity-worshipping church are destroying the objectivity that physics should maintain. You do not have to agree with my characterization of these scientists being worshippers who have chosen faith over objectivity. All I ask of you Mr. Milner is that you agree physics must not be destroyed by removing experimental confirmation as the founding principle. Please help save physics!

Your intervention here could also save the world billions of dollars. General Relativity's failure to explain the observed universe is well known. The evidence against General Relativity is not just in the behavior of galaxies but Earth-side too in the behavior of various launched space-crafts. Dark matter was created to explain failures of General Relativity (many physicists would object to this line and would like to rephrase it, but we do not agree with various official spins being given). Billions of dollars are being allocated and are being spent, and lots more money seems to be on the way, to search for Dark Matter. If Special Relativity fails either of the above experiments then no Dark Matter or other such creation can save it. And General Relativity is built on the assumption that Special Relativity is true. It might be wise to spend a tiny amount to at least confirm Special Relativity. You could help save the world billions of dollars, or otherwise at least experimentally confirm Special Relativity. Both would be noble tasks.

I reiterate with full sincerity that this matter must be taken very seriously and urge you to accept my $7 million offer.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi
Physicsnext.org

P.S. (5 notes)

1. Steven Weinberg is the preeminent theoretical physicist alive today, in my opinion. In addition, he has the broadest knowledge base regarding what is happening in physics today (including renormalization & regularization -- he is an expert on the first). I believe his greatest fall will be his faith in relativity.
2. Yuri Milner himself knows enough physics and mathematics to check that we actually have a counter-example as stated above. The same goes for everyone listed here. (They don't have to ask Steven Weinberg for help).
3. The String Theory camp that Milner supports does not worry about experiments. It would seem Milner is similarly anti-experiment. So we know Milner will not support experimentation anyway. In particular, Steven Weinberg would laugh at the possibility that Special Relativity can fail an experiment and Milner has appointed Weinberg his official adviser. He is on the Board.
4. Why are we then asking Milner to support experimentation, and that too of widely accepted Special Relativity? We are asking the enemy camp for help in fighting against them given that our cause is just and theirs isn't :-) 
5. Board member Weinberg surely can explain to Yuri Milner why advanced physics textbooks assign outrageously wrong values to ζ (0) and ζ (-1). These textbooks are directly used in parts of physics related to the works for which the Milner prize has been awarded, and (given that awardees will choose) for which it will likely continue to be awarded.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I sent above letter to Mr. Yuri Milner. I also emailed Steven Weinberg a copy of above letter since he is mentioned in the letter and he is officially on the Board, requesting him to forward to Milner.
Weinberg responded: "You should send this directly to Mr. Milner.  SW"

(Note: It would seem certain links in the P.S. (5 notes) above are not functioning. That is because of changes at this external site).

 

June 2014: Reminder to Yuri Milner, and a request to correct statement on Dark Matter at Breakthrough Prize site

June 2014 – Request to make correction on this page, downloaded from Breakthrough Prize site on June 21 2014 (see link to Breakthrough Prize site)

Subject: Mistaken claim about Dark Matter "discovery" at your Breakthrough Prize site

Dear Esteemed Mr. Milner,

We write this letter regarding below mistaken statements at your Breakthrough Prize site and request correction of this error. Your site has a few lines stating the current and past situation in physics, and it should not be too challenging to at least get these right.

The site says (as accessed on June 21, 2014):
Recently scientists have discovered that dark matter and dark energy account for most of the contents of the Universe.

Given what the term "discover" means, Dark matter has, in fact, NOT been discovered. That is a physics fact as of June 2014. Please check that this is fact and then correct your sentence.

You can look at the meaning of discover. For your convenience I give you these links:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discover

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discover
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery (this link is if you want to go deeper)

You can also check with the entire group of previous prize winners regarding this claim about Dark Matter "discovery."

Specifically the correction should include removal of the phrase "have discovered."

May I also suggest that the next group of prizes be given for the breakthrough called Dark Strings!

Mr. Milner, I would also kindly remind you of the U.S. $7 million prize offer I made back in January 2014, regarding help bring about basic testing of Special Relativity. I am ready to write the check.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi
Physicsnext.org

 

August/September 2013:  we have now initiated our Plan B

We have initiated our Plan B. We can't fight "The Believers" alone and have now resorted to contacting and appealing for help from a wider group who are highly capable of looking at matters objectively, including professors in various disciplines, and others who have the requisite expertise.

Plan B is based on this reality: on our side we have a valid counter-example to relativity's derivation, and a desktop experiment that can end relativity; the relativity-worshippers in the physics establishment have only physics authoritarianism and evasion on their side.
 

Steven Weinberg, Howard Georgi and the list above have a weakness in their attempts to bury the counter-example I have provided: Einstein's 1905 derivation was high school mathematics and specialists in "abstruse mathematics" are not needed to see that we have a counter-example. We intend to exploit this advantage, which leaves The Believers naked by stripping away the abstruse mathematics that they have shrouded today's physics in. Yes, Emperor Steven Weinberg has no clothes!

Our appeal email has this, or something similar, as Subject: Professor [name],  please help! Physics authorities suppressing counter-example and experimentation, to prevent a Kuhn-style "paradigm shift"

———Below is a excerpt from email to professors in various disciplines, and to others. This is just as an excerpt, and subject to revision/modification/re-writing depending whom we are sending it to and other factors. ———--

Please visit my website physicsnext.org for full details. Briefly, this is the situation that has arisen:

Special Relativity (Einstein’s 1905 theory) has a Derivation of its equations, the Lorentz transformations, from its two postulates; my paper has a counter-example showing that the derivation is invalid. Journals will not acknowledge that I have a counterexample, nor can their referees find an error in my paper saying why I don't. But they won't publish. Every invitation by me to physics journals and professors to show me why I don't have a counterexample or even simply state that I don’t have a counter-example has have evaded. This has gone on for 8 years.

In this 2005 article Physics Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg says (on page 1) regarding Special Relativity: "Lorentz grumbled that Einstein was simply assuming what he and other had been trying to" explain, and Weinberg talks of "[h]ow rulers contract when moving" (special relativity's length contraction). After "assuming" observer-independent constancy of speed of light as a postulate Einstein's 1905 paper gives a Derivation of Lorentz transformations. A big reason for acceptance of special relativity was that Einstein's postulate — that all observers, irrespective of their own motion, always see light travel at the same speed in a vacuum — has been fully verified multiple times. From his two postulates Einstein gives a Derivation of the length contraction equation (one of the equations that form the Lorentz transformations). So that settles everything in favor of Einstein, because Derivation means it has been Mathematically and Rigorously shown that A (the postulates) necessarily implies B (the Lorentz transformations). Physicists have studied and checked this Derivation over for a 100 years. It is this "Derivation" which we have shown to have been based on unstated assumptions, and have found a counter-example C that shows that A does not necessarily imply B but can equally well imply C (and thus Einstein did not have a valid Derivation). Besides showing that the derivation is invalid, we make the further statement that C are actually the correct space and time equations that follow from the postulates and B (the Lorentz transformations) are incorrect. We also give a simple desktop experiment that will show that B is incorrect, based on the different predictions theories B and C in one situation; this experiment was actually suggested by Einstein himself with, of course, the aim of showing that relativity is correct.

We are not questioning that the postulates of Special Relativity are correct. There are two issues to be decided:
(1) Whether, by having a counter-example, we have shown that Einstein's derivation was invalid (details above).

(2) Whether B (Lorentz Transformations) or C (the Equations in our
paper) are the correct space and time equations.

(1) can be decided by studying our counter-example and determining if it is consistent with the postulates. (2) can be decided by a simple desktop experiment which we have given at website physicsnext.org.

As Lorentz states (in above link), Einstein provided no explanation for the observer-independent constancy of speed of light and "simply assum[ed]" it as fact. And (until now) no one has ever been able to provide an explanation. My theory provides an actual explanation. Note the length contraction part which Weinberg mentions ("rulers contract when moving") has never been experimentally tested and my theory shows that length contraction does not happen. Einstein also began with an incorrect understanding of the nature of time in Newtonian physics (and physicists continue to have this incorrect understanding regarding Newtonian physics and time), details here. My theory is based on a correct understanding of time in Newtonian physics. Full details are at website physicsnext.org

I choose to quote from a 2005 paper because that is the year I finished my lifetime project of "Replacing Special Relativity's Spacetime with the Correct Space and Time Equations." I chose Steven Weinberg's article because he is the preeminent and outspoken physics leader today. I have corresponded with him and he refuses to be objective and seems happy that I stay in limbo; in fact, he and his colleagues "faith" in special relativity in no less strong then the Church's faith in an Earth-centered universe was (and two years ago I stated this to Steven Weinberg). Objectivity has no place in such religious faith, and I consider Weinberg's faith and power to be the biggest hurdle to any attempt to overthrow relativity. Of course it is not that Professor Weinberg alone that is the hurdle, it is all physicists who will not tolerate any refutation of the foundations today's physics is based on, and spend their entire lives engaged in a race with colleagues to build on the foundations.

I mention [Thomas] Kuhn in the subject of this message because Kuhn had pointed out that physicists get trapped in their paradigm, reject objectivity, and resist attacks on the major theories embedded in their paradigm. And relativity is one of the two major theories today's physics is based on, the other being quantum mechanics. So we are fighting Kuhnian physicists defending their paradigm, not physicists looking at matters objectively.

One advantage we have is that the mathematics of both  Special Relativity and our theory, which seeks to displace relativity, is simple, so one does not have to spend years mastering abstruse mathematics to read these papers. The second advantage is the internet, which can facilitate taking our case to people who are not trapped in the current relativity paradigm (perhaps, because their work in physics not based on relativity being correct) or they are not physics professors and thus are not trapped in the physics paradigm.

I have been patient and watched physicists for 8 years continue to ignore me or mock me, though unable to refute me. By doing this Kuhnian physicists, including Weinberg, have shown that they will ignore facts and logic to preserve their paradigm. At this point, I realize that continuing to ask these physicists to try and be objective is a lost cause. Kuhn seems to have been right that it is in-built into the nature of physics for its practitioners to throw objectivity out the window and live in reverence of the theories embedded in their paradigm .

The desktop experiment (suggested by Einstein himself), and described at physicsnext.org can be performed with today's technology, and will NOT give the result Einstein expected. This one falsification means the end of relativity theory.

We request your help with (1) Counter-example issue and (2) Experimental test. We would be very grateful if you can take on the burden of helping settle these two matters.

We request that if (1) is settled in our favor then physics authorities should no longer to be permitted to teach the derivation as being correct.

That derivation is in all Introduction to Modern Physics college courses. Physics professors should not be allowed to choose physics books for their courses that print the derivation without also mentioning that it is incorrect. Truth must prevail in physics and academics. I urge your help because it seems to me that Weinberg and others would want to continue to teach special relativity and its derivation as correct, whether they are correct or not; they will do fierce battle!

We further request that  (2) Experimental test should be done because that is a proper and objective experimental testing of special relativity, rather than selective testing by Kuhnian physicists which has been done so far and which has kept their relativity paradigm safe. It seems to us that Weinberg and others do not want any experiment to be done that can prove relativity incorrect. Relativity is one desktop experiment away from becoming history. These physicists will fight outside interference into what experiments physicists choose to do (and what experiment they strategically want to avoid).

(Again, as stated above: Every invitation by me to physics journals and professors to show me why I don't have a counterexample or even simply state that I don’t have a counter-example has been evaded.  In 2011 I emailed Weinberg with CC to a large group of top physicists saying: "I invite a reply from any and all esteemed professors the letter is sent or copied to. Can you confidently tell me that I DO NOT have a counter-example?" Not a squeak from these experts to my invitation to refute me and forever put me back in my place. This challenge has been sent to journals and professors and the process has gone on for 8 years; no referee report from any journal stating that I do not have a valid counterexample and same evasion by the professors whom I challenged.  If physics authorities now do an about-turn and proclaim that my counter-example is not valid, I would request your help in independent and objective evaluation of their reasoning vs. my reasoning. My reasoning is in my paper, and the paper has remained unchanged.)

———End of Excerpt——-

Addendum (Not being sent with above email): My lifetime project, the paper, will save the future work of professors and other physics researchers from being gibberish. Do not work on spacetime any further unless you read my simple paper. Or work on it and all your work has no future; when that happens, and it will happen, don't say Ashish Sirohi did not tell you. And to physics professors for whom spacetime has been their main work: if you are near the possibility of being able to get tenure, my advice is to run and get it now; don't stop for water, don't stop because you are out of breath, please run fast and secure your career!

 

The new-found anti-God mission of physics, led by Steven Weinberg  reducing physics to being a means of propagation of the highly subjective and authoritarian views of those in charge!

This is a growing obsession among physicists, and their aggressiveness and loudness on the matter seems to have been started by Steven Weinberg or at least started in his rule (I am NOT spending time on research to find out who should get what credit or discredit for this loud new fashion among physicists). Now Lawrence Krauss wants to lead the charge with this. Must also acknowledge Stephen Hawking who is always teasing the Vatican about there being no need for God. These scientists exult that religious books have passages that science can show to be wrong, and nothing makes these scientists happier than shouting this news from rooftops!  The question is not about poking holes in this or that religious text that does not settle the God question. The God question is about whether intelligence came first or the universe.

To get to the core of the God question, and away from religious texts, let us propose a new religion with just two principles:
1. God, an actual intelligent consciousness, created the Universe
, and there is only one God.
2.
Only God and has the ability to create a Universe, and there is no other way for a Universe to be formed.

Where do they physicists stand then? Well, they can disprove point 2 by creating a universe. Then we have a breakthrough argument against the need for God. But they don't create universes, they write papers and make
propaganda suggestions to the general public that they know how to do it (or are on the verge of knowing how to the Theory of Everything would, I assume given the "Everything" word, also show how to create a universe)! In my opinion, you gotta be a gullible moron to believe these physicists' crazy "Theory of Everything" claims, the proof is in the pudding and we know there is no pudding. It is not clear who are the bigger nut cases those who believe claims of physicists or those who believe the basic 2-points of religion.

Given science knowledge so far, it is certainly possible that God (and we have "defined" God in the 2-point religion above) exists and also certainly possible that God doesn't. We know physicists are not going to be able to create a universe anytime soon. And I suspect this may well remain the permanent situation, because physicists might never be able to create a universe. My personal belief on whether or not God exists is not relevant to the argument.  But, just to rattle The Believers (i.e. the relativity-worshipping members of The Church of Absolute Faith in Special Relativity ), let me say this: We are on a Mission from God. What mission? (And thanks for not asking "What God?") Why, as stated above many times: the mission to end the incorrect equations of Special Relativity and its concept of their being a "fabric" of spacetime, and replace them with the correct physics and correct space and time equations stated here: See Paper and Part I of website.

 

The Multiverse Story terrified of the fine-tuning situation physicists make a desperate move!

Multiverse is becoming part of mainstream physics. But the Multiverse seems to be desperate physics propaganda led by Steven Weinberg and others — not because there cannot be more than one universe — but because of the "political" anti-God motives which caused physicists to embrace it.  Physicists discovered that this Universe seems very  fine-tuned for life and that suggested that someone fine-tuned it, which favored the God-concept. They revolted against giving the God-believers the advantage of this argument and embraced the Multiverse concept, which would have a multiverse full of mostly lifeless universes, but (by lottery luck of having just the right physical laws and values of physical constants) have some that support life. Yes, it is true that multiverse was not invented by physicists for this purpose and the concept existed before. But the fine-tuning argument created a crisis and an urgent political need, and caused physicists to rush to make the multiverse a mainstream part of physics. Why the urgency to embrace it — because of the subjective situation at the top of physics. Professor Steven Weinberg rules at the top and he is very-hard-core anti-religion and anti-God (as are most of his fellow leaders) so physics changed course — if Steven Weinberg (and others who rule today) was less hard-core, physics may not have had to make an emergency course change.  Because of this purely personal, totally irrelevant, and highly subjective non-physics view of these individuals, physicists will now have to forever publish papers on the multiverse, to hold it up as central to physics. The physics bosses are leading by example they are speedily publishing on the multiverse; the rest of the community has jumped it at full throttle to join them in writing about the multiverse. Papers physicists have been writing include explaining observed anomalies in our universe using inter-universe gravitational attraction, and floating suggestions that they actually have observational tests of multiverse theory. Gotta admit one thing physicists sure move fast once the orders are received from those in authority on what they should be working on!

Physicists seem to be not as bad as Thomas Kuhn painted them, they seem to be far worse! But that is good news for physicists: they proved Kuhn wrong. And congratulations to Steven Weinberg on that victory over Kuhn! :-) I am not sure that I am being fully "objective" in the previous 3 lines but one thing I am sure about...while physicists are out there allegedly "objectively searching for truth" about the universe, we need people to be "objectively searching for truth" about what physics is. If I were Steven Weinberg I would be worried about a recent trend — instead of following the tradition of reverently accepting physicists' pronouncements of their objectiveness, many are becoming skeptics, and articles questioning the motives behind physicists' embrace of the multiverse abound.

 

COMIC RELIEF— The below headings include Jokes (or attempts at humor)

 

The OPERA Debacle On how Experimenters might be able to get neutrinos back under light speed, without dumping GPS!

What fantastic claim be shown by doing an OPERA-like experiment to measure speed of light instead of neutrinos? It can be shown that not only do neutrinos travel faster than light, but light travels faster than itself too! Of course light cannot travel faster than itself (and you don’t have to be an Einstein to realize that)! 

Speed = Distance / Time. If measured this way the neutrinos will not be faster than light, provided Distance and Time can be correctly measured. But OPERA used the latest technology – GPS, which adjusts time according to relativity’s equations.  (Here is a fun New York Times story about GPS). So in OPERA’s physics, Speed = (GPS Measured Distance) / (GPS Measured Time). You can get neutrinos back under light speed if you can eliminate GPS from the measurements. Relativity-worshipping physicists can (and probably will) escape the faster-than-light neutrinos dilemma by dodging GPS and thus dodging relativistic time equations. So relativity-worshippers may well have the last laugh. But look at the irony – they have to escape from relativity’s GPS time adjustments to fix the neutrino issue and save relativity’s light postulate!

But they would have this rhyme back again "If nothing travels faster than light then Einstein’s theory is right!" Mediocre minds (i.e. just about everyone in today’s world of physics) would then again dance to the line, ignoring the detail that relativity’s time equations caused the problem. Truly, a dance of the non-thinking crowd!

Other Options to fix the GPS problem also exist if experimenters INSIST on using GPS to measure neutrino speed. Here are two. Of course, I recommend that the "military option should always be the last option," and who in earth's history has ever disagreed with that? :-|

GPS Option 1 — (the Civilian Option)

Do what the guy in the New York Times article did. Use multiple GPS devices (from different companies); go with the one that gives "correct" result. Recommend you do the research and restrict your choice to devices which seem to be speed-conservative (means the error, if any, will be towards lower-speed).

GPS Option 2 — (the Military Option).

Physics experimenters should just call in the U.S. military and their "More Accurate" GPS will fix the problem. Indeed, GPS is controlled by the U.S. military, and they can "fix" any signal.

Is Military GPS More Accurate Than Civilian GPS?
Yes.
You can read the official answer here

Is GPS under U.S. military control?
Yes.
Official answer here.


It would seem that adjusting data according to relativity’s equations (which was/is applauded as an example of how relativity now rules everyday technology) is not GPS's only flaw (since that would affect only highest-precision measurements). There seems to be some additional problem. The military is not known for acknowledging errors, and they probably are running adjustments on an ad hoc basis.

Do some measurements of the speed of light using GPS (for light travelling one point to another on earth's surface), see what % error you get. That is as straightforward a precision-testing of GPS as one can do, no? Even assuming there were no other flaws in GPS, the flaw introduced by incorporating relativity’s equations into GPS will show up in doing such precision-testing. GPS is the elephant in the room, and are high-precision experimenters taking the fall for relying on false assurances about the perfection of GPS?

Why is GPS technology secret and military-controlled?
Think-tank RAND Corporation (Rand.org) states that (among other reasons): "The ability to degrade the quality of civil GPS signals can be useful in wartime, assuming U.S. forces are not reliant on civilian GPS."
Of course the unstated assumption is that the enemy-forces will be "reliant" on GPS; hey, RAND and U.S. Military, don't you think that would be pretty stupid of your (Evil and Freedom-hating) enemy, given that such U.S. "strategy" documents are available on the internet? Or do you hotshots at RAND think that you are so smart that this is part of some double-game? (In fact, it seems that they think they are "so smart" given RAND's history of letting such documents float around publicly)!

Note from U.S. military: "The United States has no intent to ever use Selective Availability [of civilian GPS] again." Note from me: I don't believe them! :-|
Contrast with:
“If you can’t trust the governments of the world, who can you trust? ” - “Young Einstein” (1988)

Civilians worldwide who are becoming more and more reliant on GPS are one switch away from mayhem. Given the seriousness of how this could disrupt civilian attempts to flee war zones (ever hear of Freedom to live?), let us switch channels away from doom and gloom, and escape to comic relief:

Note: Date and Location of "declassified version" or "unclassified version" of the RAND Corp document quoted from above is not being stated here; the full and classified version can be obtained from the appropriate U.S. "Agency." Initiate contact using authorization-code "Gallipoli Padova Sierra". Their reply-code will be "Tango Einstein Victor Rambo" and you should acknowledge by politely saying "Roger That." If they don't "Tango" and instead you hear a helicopter hovering overhead, it means they changed the initiation code sorry! Also, by the way, the entire OPERA and neutrinos debacle was a joint APS and U.S.Military prank (thought up by RAND?) to embarrass European physics. Point-Number-One on APS Mission Statement: To be the [world's] "leading voice for physics"

 

Brian Greene, Strings, Cats, and the Theory of Everything; with guest appearance by Ed Witten

Brian Greene is a string theorist, and that is what the most brilliant physicists seemingly choose (or at least used to) to work on. Moreover, he is not just a mere human working on string theory, he is super-man and works on a theory reserved for super-physicists: Superstring theory. "Superstring theory is an attempt to explain all of the particles and fundamental forces of nature in one theory by modelling them as vibrations of tiny supersymmetric strings. Superstring theory is a shorthand for supersymmetric string theory because unlike bosonic string theory, it is the version of string theory that incorporates fermions and supersymmetry." If you don't find that super-intelligent, then I don't know what will impress you!

Look up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, no it is Super-Greene armed with his Superstrings. Yes, here he comes now to unleash the Superstrings and rope in all the bad guys!

So why does Brian Greene have to worry if the elementary theory called special relativity is wrong? This is from Brian Greene's Official Website: "Professor Greene is widely recognized for a number of groundbreaking discoveries in his field of superstring theory, including the co-discovery of mirror symmetry, which launched a vibrant field of research in physics and mathematics, and also the discovery of topology change, which showed that unlike Einstein’s General Relativity, in string theory the fabric of space can tear apart." Look at the keywords: "General Relativity" and "fabric of space." If special relativity falls then there is no general relativity and no "fabric" (since this concept comes from relativity). So what Brian Greene has then done is shown that a "fabric" which doesn't exist can "tear apart"! What about his "co-discovery" of "mirror symmetry" "which launched a vibrant field of research"? Unfortunately, again all based on relativity as a foundation means more gobbledygook if relativity is wrong.

Well, Greene is an excellent science writer, he can still make a comfortable living. Yes, but he will have to fix his terrible spelling after relativity falls: book after book, he has been spelling "brain" as "brane"!

Did you hear about the guy who got two Physics Nobel Prizes? The first for experimentally showing that the universe seems to obey general relativity (fact, 1993 Nobel prize), the second for doing a deeper experiment that showed conclusively that general relativity is wrong (not yet a fact, but Upcoming soon)! (Joke ends. Direct refutation of general relativity is not needed. If special relativity falls, and that fall is one desktop experiment away , then general relativity immediately falls too, because general relativity will be like a table whose legs are gone!)

What do string theorists hate the most? When people's knowledge of what String Theory is comes from Lee Smolin and not Brian Greene!

Did you hear the latest development regarding the "Theory of Everything"? It was completed but, unfortunately, the dog ate the manuscript!

Why did Professor Brian Greene cross the road? Well, Professor Ed Witten crossed the road, and Brian Greene just follows whatever Ed Witten does. (Joke ends. Note: There is no suggestion that string theorists are wrong to have Ed Witten as their designated-leader. Also see, Ed Witten on Alien Physics, String Theory, and Great Physics Ideas).

Did you know that Professor Brian Greene now gives a free bottle of snake oil with each of his string theory books?
(Joke ends and the snake reference is explained: Snakes and strings/ropes...Western mythology suggests the former can be destructively seductive and Eastern philosophy examines the concept of perception and compares ropes
with snakes. String theorists believed the string/rope/snake and fell ... maybe an electron is just a point-particle after all! Selling string theory is getting more difficult nowadays, but Brian Greene is a super-salesman...thus the "snake oil" reference. Here is another version: What did Brian Greene do after he stopped selling string theory? He made a fortune selling snow to eskimos!)

Why has Brian Greene now taken to selling the multiverse theory in his latest book "The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos?" Besides the other reason above, the additional reason string theorists have for their love of the multiverse is that they seem to be getting sick and tired of this universe not working out for them! Brian Greene will soon be coming up with the ultimate excuse: "Who cares if string theory is wrong in this universe. String theory is about Elegant Universes out there, and we now know this ain't one of them!"

Amazon.com quotes this official line regarding Brian Greene's multiverse book:
The bestselling author of The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos tackles perhaps the most mind-bending question in modern physics and cosmology: Is our universe the only universe?

Let me do one better and ask: Is our multiverse the only multiverse?

I emailed Brian Greene asking him above question, mentioning why the question is logically valid even if one defines our multiverse to contain an infinite number of universes.

And we devote below note to Professor Brian Greene's new theory where he explains why it may be that string theorists are having trouble getting to the "Theory of Everything."

Brian Greene has a new theory which says that we humans might be too stupid to advance physics further — not kidding, not a joke, that ACTUALLY IS his theory...do a search!
Brian Greene's 2-step argument:

Step 1: "No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail."
Step 2: "We can certainly go further than cats, but why should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our brains will be able to understand the deepest workings" [and be able to complete writing the theory]

(We are what we are ... means unless our brains evolve and we know how long that can take, our best hope might seem to be to reach out to more intelligent beings out there. But that that might only end up confirming the devastating news that Brian Greene's new theory is right. Will they be able to teach physics that they know to us ... well, can we teach general relativity to a cat?)

I refute Brian Greene thus, and emailed him.

Brian Greene Encore Exploiting Higgs and his upcoming book "The Political Universe"; with guest appearance by Gordon Kane, and an introduction to Greene's political "Papa"


Professor Gordon Kane recently revised the name of his book from "Supersymmetry" to "Supersymetry and Beyond,"; but his best calculation was to also put today's magic word "Higgs" into the full title!
Old title - Supersymmetry: Unveiling The Ultimate Laws Of Nature by Gordon Kane (2001) Revised title - Supersymmetry and Beyond: From the Higgs Boson to the New Physics by Gordon Kane (May, 2013)

What kind of revision by Gordon Kane are we talking? This kind of revision, truly amazing
(wonderful piece by Professor Peter Woit)!
Who endorses such revision?
Why
our favorite politician Brian Greene, of course! Brian Greene's Review of Professor Kane's New (ha!) Book: “Supersymmetry and Beyond is the fascinating account of the search for nature’s fundamental building blocks, told by a modern day pioneer. The stakes are high and the story dramatic: if experiments should establish that nature is supersymmetric, we would have finally glimpsed the quantum nature of space and time.”

Brian Greene understands when "stakes are high," and he is reprinting all his books!

Greene's
Old titles and New (upcoming) revised titles:

Old - The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos Revised - The Hidden Reality: Higgs Boson, Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos

Old - The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality Revised - The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, Higgs Boson, and the Texture of Reality

Old - The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory Revised - The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Higgs Boson, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

Let us stick to Supersymmetry and move from Brian Greene, the politician, to Brian Greene, the physicist.  It would seem that Brian Greene and Gordon Kane do not believe in learning from results of experiments or in accepting that theories they love can be wrong. They are politicians first, scientists later (or used to be scientists before they became politicians)!

Contrast this with Professors Adam Falkowski  and  Mikhail Shifman who actually can face the reality that what they enthusiastically believed in might have been wrong. The academic community can learn a lot from Falkowski and Shifman! See this article showing true scientists at work, and what a wonderful exception they are to political world of Greene and Kane, "After 30 years, Supersymmetry Fails Test" (December 7, 2012) and As Supersymmetry Fails Tests, Physicists Seek New Ideas (November 20, 2012). In his defense, Brian Greene has his new theory that all laws of the universe have actually evolved from politics, and is writing a bold new book called "The Political Universe!"
Natalie Wolchover, great article, but this line is wrong: "It predicts the existence of particles that could constitute "dark matter," an invisible substance that permeates the outskirts of galaxies." (Emphasis mine.)
Outskirts? Who sold you that? They would like to have it outskirts of the galaxy (so then they can avoid the burden of experiments until Kirk and Spock travel to the outskirts)...but the "outskirts theory" would require explanations/suggestions for why dark matter likes to hang out far from us. And today, none of the dark matter theorists have been smart enough to save Earth from dark matter. If it exists it is everywhere in the galaxy (Earth included) and they (the Dark side of Earth Science) are sitting with equipment in mines deep in the earth — their instructions are clear: any unexplained reading means they found Dark Matter :-)
Natalie emailed back saying: Regarding the "outskirts" sentence, I was referring to the widespread belief that dark matter, whatever it is, forms a halo around galaxies. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter_halo for more info. Thanks again for reading!


Let us move on from Brian Greene and meet his political "Papa!" Greene hugs (Higgs?) Lawrence Krauss,  calling him "Papa!" No kidding, check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J4QPz52Sfo at 03:25. Indeed Greene is but a child-politician compared to Papa Krauss!

Lawrence Krauss — his war against logic, his magic show, and his upcoming movie; with guest appearances by Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson

Max Planck did not shy away from the truth that scientists do not like to be wrong, and science camps do not like to change their views. Being a genuine physicist and not a politician he put it straight. His honesty earned his quote fame and widespread dissemination (and deservedly so). Here is what Planck said: Science progresses funeral to funeral because "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."  Such reality does not support insistent claims by Steven Weinberg and others (such as Krauss below) that science is objective, and that scientists see the facts and agree that they were wrong.

The current physics authorities do not put it straight, and like to offer the public a fairy-tale view of science.

At this large public-gathering, run by scientists to make the public learn about what science is, Professor Lawrence Krauss who was the leader of the establishment at the gathering offered the public this wisdom: "Being wrong really is the most exciting thing in science" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw at 20:44). And this is not just one occasion where he talks such propaganda, this line seems to be a regular part of his gigs  (his Higgs?)! I guess his politics/spin is to make the public look up to scientists with more awe and think: everyone in the world hates being wrong but not these scientists — they are so saintly and enlightened!
Does Krauss himself walk the talk? Of course not! Forget accepting being wrong, Krauss has a hard time tolerating any opposing view, as evidenced by his "moronic philosophers" outburst. (In any case, "Being wrong really is the most exciting thing" is not true in any discipline; "Being right really is the most exciting thing!")

Krauss wrote a book called A Universe From Nothing. This book has gotten rave reviews from the usual bunch of physicists (mostly other physics writers who follow the "you praise my book, I will praise yours" understanding). I do not mean to suggest that everyone who praised the book understood its faults and let it go; most physicists would not have realized that there were faults (what time do they have for logic, given all the abstruse mathematics that keeps piling on for them to study as a pre-requisite to reading the latest papers)!

Krauss's book centers around a game/trick he is playing. At one time empty space was thought to actually be "nothing", but now we know that empty space is close to being "everything" (fine, one can challenge the use of the word "everything" but that does not help Krauss because he needs empty space to be "nothing") — empty space seems to the source of what we observe in the universe. Given what we know today, we cannot call empty space to be "nothing" any more than we can call all matter in the universe to be "nothing." So Krauss wants us to forget what we know, go back to the time when we thought empty space was "nothing", do a make believe act that it is still true, and then he has A Universe From Nothing. What kind of nonsense game is this? Is there a Nobel Prize for illogic?
I use this line above: Given what we know today, we cannot call empty space to be "nothing" any more than we can call all matter in the universe to be "nothing." See NY Times Book Review below for the facts. Let me further explain by giving one additional fact. Experimentally verified "Casimir Effect" shows that energy of empty space is actual energy in that empty space can exert force on material objects and move them. Is the sun more real than sunlight? Is one form of actual energy more real than another? The answer to both these questions is no, and that explains the line. I put this in because Krauss has new spins on his book and one of these seems to be a play on the word "something" to suggest that particles are more real ( like saying that sun is more real than sunlight); Krauss says: "When you go from no particles to particles, it means something." Krauss is right and what it means is: Something from Something.
Krauss never liked empty space having energy: "Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space" (Emphasis mine). See above  "Casimir Effect" experiment, it refutes Krauss's suggestion .I emailed Professor Krauss informing him of this experimental refutation. Krauss doesn't like this universe with its huge "actual energy of empty space," and he doesn't know how to build his own universe with properties he likes! And he is not alone!
It seems Krauss has had changing views, on above "cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy" of empty space; it seems to not be a view evolving in one direction, seems more like a pendulum. But I have spent limited time on this; again do you own research on the matter
of Krauss's views on energy of space, I don't have his latest view and whether he now "accepts the universe."

Quoting from Richard Dawkins' afterword to Krauss's book (see more on this afterword below), p. 188: When Margaret Fuller remarked, with what I imagine to be a sigh of satisfaction, "I accept the universe," Thomas Carlyle's reply was withering: "Gad, she'd better!"
Ironic quote to use in the afterword to Krauss's book, given that Krauss himself is not sure that he accepts the universe. According to Krauss, it isn't only energy of empty space(as above) that is a cockamamie thing, the bigger problem is " this cockamamie universe".


A reviewer of Krauss's book, who happens to be a philosopher/physicist, pointed out above "nothing" illogic in a New York Times book review. Here is an excerpt of the book review (Emphasis is not mine, it is from the review):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

A century ago, it seems to him [Krauss], nobody would have made so much as a peep about referring to a stretch of space without any material particles in it as “nothing.” ... Who cares what we would or would not have made a peep about a hundred years ago? We were wrong a hundred years ago. We know more now. And if what we formerly took for nothing turns out, on closer examination, to have the makings of protons and neutrons and tables and chairs and planets and solar systems and galaxies and universes in it, then it wasn’t nothing, and it couldn’t have been nothing, in the first place.

Krauss is illogical and wrong, as explained above, but cannot tolerate this reality. On reading above review of his book, Krauss went ballistic against philosophers and the entire field of philosophy and railed against "moronic philosophers" and informed the world that philosophy "hasn't progressed in two thousand years."

Which branch of philosophy caused Lawrence Krauss to declare war on philosophy?
Logic!

Did you hear that Lawrence Krauss is now doing magic shows at the American Museum of Natural History in New York? The magic performance has Krauss showing an empty hat, and then he pulls out a rabbit from it as final proof of his Universe from Nothing. One audience member asked about the hidden compartment. Krauss angrily explained that the compartment was actually "nothing" and the "Boss" at the museum, Neil deGrasse Tyson, threw the questioner out and banned him from the museum for being a "moron."
Context Reference: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/neil-degrasse-tyson-blows-it-big-time. Best "scientific" behavior by both Krauss and Tyson to keep objective reality out: they like "experts" who will praise the illogical book as brilliant; luckily for them, scientists willing to cooperate are a dime a dozen! But the need is for outrageous praise of illogic by a big name scientist and that does not come easy; Richard Dawkins provides it, see above book review. Richard Dawkins is not as stupid as he seems in the book afterword he writes, but in the afterword he took leave of reason and logic for his friend Krauss, and what are friends for? Welcome to cronyism, which thrives in science (perhaps no more, but also no less, than it does it other academic fields); Richard Dawkins is a living example of cronyism in science. So much for the claimed objective, fact-based, and reason-based thinking of scientists, which Krauss and Dawkins preach across the world!

Claims by Lawrence Krauss and his physics supporters that it is not about logic, but that "nothing" in physics is not equal to the usual meaning of "nothing" are continued illogic. Physics authorities should not be allowed to invent such outrageous and ad hoc defenses, such as adjusting the meaning of "nothing." Given our knowledge of what empty space is, what Krauss calls "nothing" cannot logically be called "nothing." Krauss is illogical and wrong as are his scientist defenders supporting his disingenuous attempts to escape being wrong.

Movie Quote from The Unbelievers:
Lawrence Krauss says [to] Richard [Dawkins]: "What's more important in a sense, if you get a choice - explain science or destroy religion?"
Let me answer the question:
As far as the science called Physics is concerned, Krauss and Dawkins do not have an intellectual argument that can "explain science" in a manner whereby they "destroy religion". If they do come up with something that can hold its ground and not be illogical, that would be brilliant! But all Krauss and Dawkins do is convince each other that they have a brilliant argument, when they actually have nothing.

Do you know about the sequel to the movie The Unbelievers
It is called The Illogicians!

 

Steven Weinberg’s "scientific method" gives us a new universe: Only one-sixth of the universe existed prior to modern-physics, the rest has been created by relativity-worshipping physicists; with guest appearances by Lawrence Krauss, Lee Smolin, and Michio Kaku

 

Lawrence Krauss knows that "Dark Matter" has to exist, as do almost all physicists (because almost all physicists are Kuhnian physicists). But let us face reality: "Dark Matter" was invented because General Relativity failed to explain the observable universe as it is General Relativity says galaxies should be breaking apart, but they are holding! Physicists are trapped in the relativity paradigm, and Kuhn was right on about this reality of how physics functions.
One physicist gave the reason that the other objective possibility is rejected by physicists: "The dark-matter hypothesis is preferred mostly because the only other possibility ... that we are wrong about General Relativity ... is too scary to contemplate"
(Lee Smolin's book , “The Trouble with Physics” p. 15).

Steven Weinberg gives "speeding ticket" to galaxies:
Writing, for the general public Weinberg makes the existence of "Dark Matter" seem perfectly obvious. He writes: "The existence of dark matter in the present universe had already been inferred from the fact that clusters of galaxies hold together gravitationally, despite the high random speeds of the galaxies in the clusters." (Empasis mine).
By using the phrase "inferred from" he suggests that logically the General-Relativity-Violating behavior of galaxies implies that there is "Dark Matter"; he phrases it is a way that it makes it seem A necessarily implies B. Why can't he state the fact as it is — the fact is that two inferences are possible (as in paragraph above). Well, to Kuhnian physicists there is only one possible inference! And he adds the "despite the high random speeds" rhetoric as if that supports one inference over other — seems like he is giving galaxies a speeding ticket for violating General Relativity! We don't agree with the words "high speeds" — I think the speeds are not high , they are just fine (no "speeding ticket" warranted); and to rankle relativity-worshippers let me suggest that the speeds even seem to be a teeny bit on the slower side :-) . We also take issue with the term "random speeds" physicists must be careful of what one implies by "random".
 I emailed Professor Steven Weinberg stating that making such inferences might be against his own "scientific method."
 According to Weinberg’s quoted fraction I would put the situation this way: One sixth of the universe existed prior to modern-physics, and “Fully five sixths of the matter of the universe” has been created by relativity-worshipping physicists.


Dark Matter and Multiverse are becoming the hot topics among physicists today. We could choose from lots of physicists because almost all of them love Dark Matter, Multiverse, and Extra-Dimensions; but we will give the honors to Michio Kaku because he has been expressing a lot of enthusiasm and doing a lot of talking about all this.

Michio Kaku and his Multiverse comedy; with guest appearances by Stephen Hawking and Andrei Linde

This comedy is today's physics! Best line: "Gravity goes between universes." Yes, and he does not even bat an eye while he explains why that is obviously true!
Kaku continues with "Dark Matter" being linked to inter-universes interactions (and even inter-dimensional, yeah weird dimensions have been the coolest thing in physics in recent decades)! To top off the comedy he suggests that such crazy theories can be "experimentally verified" (his term).

More of Kaku's Multiverse comedy:
1. "Bubble bath of universes."
2. "Sometimes these bubbles can split and create what Stephen Hawking has called a Baby Universe."
3. "The Big Bang could be nothing more than the aftershock of two bubbles [universes] colliding"

"Baby Universe"? Don't babies have uncles? What about the "Uncle Universe"? When is Stephen Hawking going to introduce that one? Did I forgot to mention Aunties? Why should a universe split and create babies as Hawking says? Do Solar Systems split up to have baby Solar Systems? I believe Hawking got the splitting idea from Biology. But don't protozoan-like universes evolve in the multiverse to become developed Male and Female Universes which can and interact to create a Baby Universe (female gives birth, "splitting" is not needed to have baby universes)? It happened on Earth, why should it not happen in the multiverse?
And in Point 3, the collision method of creating new universes, how does "the aftershock" affect people like us living in/on the colliding bubbles?

Actually my "baby universes" and "solar systems" comparison/joke above is not a valid one Hawking needs Black Holes and/or Worm Holes for Baby Universes to form. Latest news (Jan 2014) from Hawking is that black holes are no longer black, and there are no baby universes either. Hard to believe Hawking was at one time actually serious about such "baby universes". What about worm holes? Well we have experimental confirmation here! And what is with the name of this show: Through the Wormhole? Given the size of wormholes, how does Morgan Freeman manage to fit in and go Through the Wormhole?

It would not be fair to talk of the multiverse without giving Andrei Linde "it is impossible to disprove that we live in the multiverse" due credit. This "impossible to disprove" bragging about a theory must have Karl Popper spinning in his grave.

Is Michio Kaku a Double Agent, or at least someone with the ability to Switch Sides? Is Kaku NOT a Kuhnian physicist at all? He seemed open to cheering on a revolution in physics (which revolution didn't happen). See his article The Noose Around Relativity is Tightening.

On one hand Kaku is ready to watch relativity fall, but on the other hand clings to Dark Matter which is an invention by Kuhnian physicists to explain the failures of General Relativity, and thus save the theory. Saving the foundational theories of their paradigm by any means, so as to carry on "normal science" based on these theories, is the mode of operation of Kuhnian physicists.


Lee Smolin and the Doubly/Triply Complicated approaches to Special Relativity; with an appeal to Perimeter Institute Director Neil Turok


I emailed Lee Smolin recently (Dec, 2013) and asked if he thinks I am a "crackpot." Apparently he is not going to give a verdict on that. Smolin's interest in my paper was because of his interest in Doubly Special Relativity (DSR), but he is committed to complicated DSR versions, including his own, that build on and extend the mathematical foundations of special relativity. We take a simple approach aimed specifically at refuting the mathematical foundations (with a counterexample), while preserving the postulates.

In his book, “The Trouble with Physics”, Lee Smolin does a great job putting string theory in the proper context (string theorists were, of course, not happy). But Loop Quantum Gravity  (which Smolin works on) is, in my opinion, another lost cause. As I wrote Smolin: "Have you considered that you might just have a different agenda/dogma, and that if Loop Quantum Gravity replaced String Theory it would still be the 'Fall of a Science?' " (Where are the Loop Quantum Gravity experiments? Isn't that a major differentiation made it 'Science' and not 'Fall of a Science'?)

Experimentation is the only way to shut down the Quantum Gravity programs such as String Theory (the leading one), Loop Quantum Gravity and others. Quantum Gravity programs are (were) about uniting the two foundations: General Relativity and Quantum theory. The programs need to end because today we can experimentally show that even Special Relativity is wrong (and since that is the foundation on which General Relativity is based, General Relativity is foundationally wrong).

The latter part of the Smolin's boldly takes on a serious problem with physics — the way physicists in power run physics! Smolin's book is thought-provoking, and we agree with him that reforms are needed in the world of physics! We must acknowledge one additional aspect that intrigues us: unlike String Theorists, the theorists doing Loop Quantum Gravity (which Smolin works on) desperately wanted to modify the "length contraction" part of Special Relativity (see Smolin's book, much of Chapter 14 is devoted to this).  This is a major motive behind Doubly Special Relativity (DSR).And removing "length contraction" was a strong motive for us too. However, our motives were not based on the needs of Loop Quantum Gravity, because that theory is also based on assuming relativity's spacetime concept being true, and we do not believe in relativity's philosophy of so-called "spacetime.".


Smolin is associated with the Perimeter Institute and was involved in its founding, and congratulations to Smolin on that achievement. Lee Smolin's interest in my paper was because of his interest Doubly Special Relativity (DSR), but he is committed to complicated DSR versions. He now calls me a "non professional," and thus avoids addressing my paper, and I guess he wants to see my "physics green card" to know if I am even authorized :-) 

In physics how do you tell an amateur from a professional? The amateur is the one who comes out with more complicated versions of nature, the professional is the one who comes out with simple versions.


I recently wrote to Perimeter Director Neil Turok agreeing with a recent speech he gave
favoring a search for simple explanations in physics, and questioning both String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. I wrote:
"I agree with your recent speech. What is with physicists nowadays and their love for abstruse and complicated applied mathematics and its increasing domination of physics? I understand that my simple and direct approach to achieving DSR does not those make [physicists] producing complicated versions of theories come out looking too intelligent. And if I am right, then lots of complicated papers become insignificant, well beyond the DSR group. The simple explanation, with experimentally testable predictions, should be the one that is given most attention. What can you do to help my paper get justice?" Well, Turok is a firm believer in relativity...and who in the establishment isn't ...so we can forget about justice :-)


Sean Carroll — the physicist who takes orders and censors inconvenient truths. And he cracks down on "lazy scientists"!


Carroll has been running a popular physics blog for years.

I wrote to him to allow me to post my views on the blog, below lines are from the request to him.

———————
You say: One of the ways I put it to them [crackpots] face to face is, "You're asking me to spend time reading and understanding your theory." Professor Carroll, what I am very respectfully asking you (see the paper at www.physicsnext.org) is to simply check Einstein's 1905 derivation of the Lorentz Transformations!

Are you smart enough to state that the counter-example at above site is invalid? NO, you are not.
———————


My suggestion was: either refute me or let my comments regarding the validity of Einstein's derivation through. Carroll actually let my comments be posted in his blog!

Some hours later he deleted the posts.

I wrote him again, below lines are from that:

——————-
Deleting my comments after some hours? Any explanations?

19. Ashish Sirohi Says:
February 22nd, 2012 at 10:56 pm

20. Ashish Sirohi Says:
February 22nd, 2012 at 11:44 pm

and then we see them gone

19. David Brown Says:

20. Eli Rabett Says:
...

You and your colleagues had the option to decimate my posted comments by countering with your comments.

Attacking someone's paper is fair game, but withholding it from a wider audience because it would disrupt accepted thinking is wrongdoing (unless the paper is obviously flawed). Posting and then removing is worse, and shows your own weakness.
———————

Why did Carroll delete what he had allowed to be posted? I believe this is what likely happened. Someone of great authority saw the post and contacted Carroll, and Carroll immediately followed orders. Yes, the classic "I was just following orders" is part of the physics community too! Carroll apparently is not confident enough to think for himself, and unthinkingly follows the commands of authority.

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." — Albert Einstein


A quote from Sean Carroll:"We know our theories are not absolutely final, but without direct experimental contradictions to them it’s hard to know how to do better."

Let me add a line to complete the quote and have it give the factual situation of the current state of physics. (Now this is physics I am talking about and not Sean Carroll, see more on this below.)
"We know our theories are not absolutely final, but without direct experimental contradictions to them it’s hard to know how to do better. And we physicists don't allow any experiments that run the risk of providing a contradiction to our theories."

We understand the need to censor. Reality is stalking the world of today's relativity-worshipping physicists. Censorship by physics authorities is essential it is the only thing protecting today's physics from the dangers of reality!  :-)

A lot of good people have done wrong by unthinkingly following orders, and after reviewing a lot of material I believe that Sean Carroll is a good person in that he strives to be reasonable and fair (at least relatively, when compared to his hardball colleagues who will not tolerate any rethinking of the foundations). He has my endorsement and can join the group of good people who made the mistake of unthinkingly following orders!

And Sean Carroll is now cracking down on "lazy scientists"!
Sean Caroll is sick of people telling him that his theories cannot be experimentally tested anytime soon... he wants to retire experiments forever!
When asked: "What Scientific Ideas Are Ready for Retirement?" Carroll answers in his own words: My answer was: " Falsifiability. More of a philosophical idea than a scientific one, but an idea that is bandied about by lazy scientists far more than it is invoked by careful philosophers" (Emphasis mine).

Lazy? Who are the lazy scientists? Those who did not spend years mastering the needless abstruse mathematics that Sean Carroll has mastered in his quest for the advancement of physics!

There was a professor who called his famous student a "lazy dog" for not running and mastering all the mathematics the professor kept throwing at his students.
Further hint -- the professor is best known for this quote: "Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."
Details here!

What needs to retire Edge.org asks? This does, for the sake of science!

Nations with Crackpot physicists: ex-Soviet and China. Some of their physicists seem curious about this website means they could test special relativity for themselves in the manner suggested, and then it is all over

It is hard to overcome aggressive physics propaganda! Professor Clifford Will: "Special relativity has been so thoroughly integrated into the fabric of modern physics that its validity is rarely challenged, except by cranks and crackpots." Physicists from USA, Europe, India (my own country where I was born and where I live) and many other nations salute smartly and never want to be accused of being cranks and crackpots. But what do we do with physicists from ex-Soviet countries and China who will not be bullied into leaving Special Relativity unquestioned? Other countries in the world (India, my country, included) do not seem to have freedom of thought in physics when it comes to Special Relativity.

Regular Visitors to this website from former Soviet Union -- Russia, Ukraine, Estonia -- and China (Beijing, Shanghai) seem to be the open-minded people in this world based on the number of visits and the depth of the visits (i.e. reading all pages and their links thoroughly). So we have friends in the world (just two places: former Soviet Union countries and China) who like my website; but they don't write me :-( .
To: Our mystery friends in former Soviet countries (Russia, Ukraine, Estonia) and China who seem very interested. Overcome the propaganda and just do the experiment please, writing me is not important :-). We have only one boss: objective truth about the universe.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone and everyone who take on the burden of helping settle this matter, and thanks to Thomas Kuhn

It is unfortunate that this matter (pun intended) was not settled within physics, and 8 years have passed since we started sending our paper to physicists and to journals. We should have listened to Thomas Kuhn and not wasted so much time urging Kuhnian physicists and their journals to be objective. Objectivity is not part of the practice of "normal science" (Kuhn's phrase), at least when it comes to questioning the foundations the science is based on. And we thank Thomas Kuhn for showing us the light and helping us expand our horizons from just pursuing science to thinking about wider question of what science is. And indeed, as our paper (even its title) shows light is actually very special it moves through space  in a way that puts mass as "secondary" to light. We thank anyone who will take on the burden of helping settle this. 

 

To the students of physics

Students should not have to bow to physics dictatorship under which wrong answers are right, and right answers are wrong. A meter-stick remains a meter-long (1 meter exact always) no matter how fast you fly by it, and any answer that says you will see it anything other than 1 meter long should get a grade of 0!

Howard Georgi is a Kuhnian Professor who has been harassing students with his wrongness, and his dear friend Steven Weinberg goads him, and others like him, along. The correct answer is what is physically true in the universe, not what these Kuhnian professors think is the right answer.

When a professor gives you a grade of 0 for not using relativity's length contraction formula, you should fight the grade. Explain to the the professor she/he is a Kuhnian physicist trapped in a paradigm and incapable of independent thought beyond the paradigm. Don't put it direct, phrase it very diplomatically, start by talking about the weather :-) . If the professor tells you that Einstein gave a derivation of the length contraction equation, inform the professor that the derivation has been shown to be incorrect because there is a counter-example to the derivation. Tell the professor to contact me, and I will straighten him/her out.  ;-) . Your professor is probably/possibly a good person, but the professor's access to facts has been limited by the powers-that-be who currently rule physics, and their resorting to suppression of an inconvenient truth! Steven Weinberg is one these powers-that-be.

 

Go Back to Part I of website

 

Comments are welcome, please post at blog created for this website.

Email: as7y at yahoo.com  OR physicsnext at gmail.com.

-- Ashish Sirohi