Yes, probably. Could you send him a list of my favourite movies, so he knows how to cast in future? I think, with the Millenium Prize Problems, he did rather well (but it was a long time ago); they revealed some physics.

I agree that constant c as local speed of light in two-way method we measured on Earth is fair but universal constant seems too much.

Dear Jixin Chen ,

>> I agree that constant c as local speed of light in two-way method we measured on Earth is fair but universal constant seems too much. //

In my opinion, you are mistaken after the author of the question :))

Dear Abdul Malek ,

>> The velocity of light c was an ordinary constant in Maxwell’s equation, as is the case for any wave propagation. //

In fact, the numerical value of the speed of light in Maxwell’s equations was never a constant. Conversely, c is a variable associated with the phenomenological parameters of the light propagation medium by a ratio of c = (εμ) -1/2, i.e. the numerical value of the speed of light in the different media is definitely dependent on the propagation environment properties.

It is not Maxwell’s fault that he could not have known at the time of his theory that the light propagation medium always has an exclusively atomic (= quantum) nature. Therefore, he had to replace such an environment with fictional continuous environments such as «aether» and «field».

A century and a half after the creation of Maxwell’s theory, we can formulate one of the aspects of this theory, namely the Principle of Relativity in relation to light: The speed of a light signal extending from a dipole source of radiation to a dipole receiver of this radiation is the rate of its propagation RELATIVE to the dipole medium (and, as an additional bonus) relative to all physical objects, resting in the same environment».

On the other hand, we must all recognize that the speed of light always and everywhere has a unique property that distinguishes it from the properties of other physical entities of nature (for example, the speed of sound in dipole environments). Indeed, according to the most significant contribution to the theory common in some limited circles after 1905, the speed of light is identical not to the typographical symbol «V», but to the third letter of the Latin alphabet «c».

With kind regards

Dear Sergey Sheludko : Thanks for your well-considered and thoughtful contribution to this discussion. Maxwell’s constant c was for classical vacuum, supposed to be made of aether at that time, where c as you say was equal to c= (εμ) -1/2, and other relatively more macroscopic particles like air of the earth’s atmosphere , water or the dust particle of the interstellar medium were absent and εμ were considered as permittivity and the permeability of aether (vacuum), necessary for electromagnetic propagation. Of course, the fact that light speed was dependent on the medium (by refraction) was known before Maxwell and as we now know a light pulse can be made to travel at crawl speed through BEC, since Lene Hau's experiment in 1998! The fact of refraction alone should have dissociated Einstein from presuming that light is something extra-material or heavenly with absolute properties.

Aether or not, Maxwell’s equation demonstrates that classical vacuum has some physical/material attribute and not an absolute void as is presumed in SR. The classical vacuum can now be considered as the quantum vacuum, where according to quantum dialectics (as suggested in the references above) virtual particle pair of elementary matter/antimatter (a photon as a boson, is its own antimatter) pop in and out of existence as Hegel’s ontological contradiction “Being-Nothing”. A “Becoming” of real particle (and also, back to virtual) is possible through quantum tunnelling or when equivalent positive energy is available, specially at the core of the galaxies.

Please see my related RG question : "Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ex_nihilo_nihil_fit_Are_You_Certain_Mr_Einstein_and_Mr_Heisenberg2

I have tried to give an explanation for wave/particle duality of light propagation, based on the real/virtual exchange through the quantum vacuum in the following rather old publication: "Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena." Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Dear Abdul Malek , you wrote:

>> Maxwell’s constant c was for classical vacuum, …//

Thanks for the clarification, you give me an impetus to the hard work to solve two problems: 1) a simpler task will be to find the words set «classical vacuum» in the original works of the author and 2) a very difficult task to understand what exactly part of substance «classical vacuum» and where it shifts in the process of «displacement current».

>> … and εμ were considered as permittivity and the permeability of aether (vacuum), necessary for electromagnetic propagation. //

To my great regret, my experience suggests that electromagnetic propagation requires a cloud of electrons tightly bound to the atomic nucleus; it is the displacement of real electrons relative to the real atomic nucleus that is real (not fictional) current. The absence of a rigid link between electrons and the atomic nucleus leads only to the absorption (instead of coherent scattering) of electromagnetic waves (as observed in metals). In this case, any influence of electromagnetic radiation on catastrophically heavier nuclei can be neglected, in full accordance with the folk wisdom in one of the languages available to me: «Dead bees do not buzz; and if they buzz, it is very, very quiet».

Thus, the newly invented substance «quantum vacuum» in no way can be a light-conducting medium, although it pretends to be an even more ridiculous invention than «aether». So, if someone is not able to overcome the inner craving for fictional substances, whether there is any point to use instead of a meaningless set of letters «aether» another set with a more sacred content, for example «Holy Spirit» (?) After all, in this case, someone would have at your disposal a completely irrefutable explanation of any physical phenomena (as Ultima ratio regums), consisting in associating with the proposed consideration of substance phenomenon, which can be formulated in the form of: «The ways of the Lord are mysterious».

With kind regards

Dear Sergey Sheludko " Please read the introduction and the references cited in the RG question "Ex nihilo nihil fit“? Are You Certain Mr. Einstein and Mr. Heisenberg?; linked in my comment above. For me the uncertainty principle is not just a measurement problem of existing entities or a problem of measurement statistics, but a fundamental aspect of the sub-structure of objective reality! It is supported by a publication in the mother of all journals, namely, NATURE! Also by the practical creation (ex nihilo) of photons from the quantum vacuum! As well as other experimental evidence, like the Lamb Shift etc. The virtual particles also explain permittivity and the permeability of Maxwell's aether!

I am not at all surprised by your reaction to my newly conceived QED, very different from Feynman et al, "Path Integral". But involving the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. The new QED is an extension to Hegel's ontological triad, "Being-Nothing-Becoming" concept; for the origin of matter and motion in this infinite, eternal and ever-changing universe!

The general reaction to my new (dialectical) QED theory, would be obvious from the (expected) heated discussion that followed in that forum. I lost a number of my (causality-based) scientist friends after my QED theory and cursed by many more! But I hope, the science of materialist dialectics and time will judge me a bit more kindly!

But one thing I can say with confidence to all my critics based on causality-based conventional physics; "You my friends, easily accept the absurdity of causality-based onetime "Big Bang" creation of the whole universe by God (?) from NOTHING; while the spontaneous (chance and necessity-based) creation of a humble and infinitesimal quantum particle from NOTHING, is a BIG problem for you!" RATIONALITY, INDEED!

No you are not. Physics is in total disarray at the moment. Nobody knows what is really going on.

Abdul Malek

It is all about the Emperor's feet.

What are the physicists standing on?

From where I stand (and I stand on matter/on energy), I see most physicists standing on space or on spacetime. That is highly suspicious of course.

A good scientist should stand on something real and not on something suspected to have some properties, that in reality are conclusions all based on how matter behaves first. Yet, next, matter is then abandoned because physicists like to step up a level higher to get the greater views.

They stepped up to the level where there isn't any solid ground underneath their feet.

Preprint On the Non-Functional Reality of the Universe

Dear Abdul Malek! “Am I the Only One Who Sees the Virtual Emperor of Global Physics, Stand Naked?”

No, you are not alone!

There are many of us! There are significantly more of us than the Virtual Emperor's sincere admirers.

Joseph.

Dear Eue Jin Jeong: “Physics is in total disarray at the moment. Nobody knows what is really going on.”

I agree, but not completely. Mainstream scientists don't know. However, there are many researchers who understand the absurdity of all Mainstream science, know what to do, and do it right!

Joseph.

There is a list of dissidents containing thousands of people

Eue Jin Jeong

Dear Eue Jin Jeong,

You wrote: " Physics is in total disarray at the moment. Nobody knows what is really going on."

Sure some people know. Shade of meaning, "theoreticians" are in total disarray because they do not study physics anymore.

Fortunately, engineers really know what is going on, because they kept studying physics all along.

If you want to learn physics and understand what is really going on, there is only one way: study engineering reference works.

John-Erik Persson > "There is a list of dissidents containing thousands of people"

Is it possible to display the list or a link here, so that more people would be inspired by them? The unity of a large number of people from around the world is necessary to bring about effective change in the practice and use of natural science for social development.

Abdul Malek

I used Google on:

dissident scientists

John-Erik

Dear Joseph Smulsky,

I agree with you completely. Something needs to be done as early as possible.

EJ

Abdul Malek

Did you create your own thread and leave us?

It’s very nice, it became easier for us to breathe and work on problems of physics, rather than philosophy.

But, as before, I repeat, it is necessary to separate the useful and controversial in the works of Einstein and Newton, which you stubbornly do not want to do. You prefer the clothes of a “great revolutionary” than an objective scientist.

Joseph Smulsky

“Am I the Only One Who Sees the Virtual Emperor of Global Physics, Stand Naked?

This is the main characteristic of Malek - a claim to exclusivity, which was fought against in other branches of ResearchGate.

Valentyn Nastasenko We need to discuss the essence of the problems, and not condemn those who discuss them!

Joseph Smulsky

I discuss the essence of the problem in which Malek does not share the positive and dubious positions in the work of Einstein and Newton.

And the fact that he has hypertrophied conceit is his problem. Although, purely from a human perspective, I just feel sorry for him.

Joseph Smulsky > "Valentyn Nastasenko We need to discuss the essence of the problems, and not condemn those who discuss them!"

As is evident here (you got it right!) and also previous discussion in other RG threads showed that this person do not comprehend "the essence of the problems" (as you say); so focuses only on persons not the substance involved and hence can be easily ignored!

Abdul Malek

Joseph Smulsky

No, I'm talking about the essence of the problem, in which you do not separate the positive and doubtful in the work of Einstein and Newton. And that you like to be the “only” fighter against these mistakes. You don't notice hundreds of other jobs. This is not a sign of an honest scientist, so ignoring it is better for you, not me.

Just to take an example, close to home, to see how the charlatans of modern theoretical physics and cosmology try to hide the nakedness of the Emperor: Two Engineers Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond DiEspositi, (of the GPS Joint Program Office), who were involved in the development of GPS, back in 1997, had the following in conclusion of a published article on this issue. Their conclusion:

“Except for the leading γ [gamma] factor [in their final equation], it is the same formula derived in classical physics for the signal travel time from the GPS satellite to the ground station. As we have shown, introducing the γ factor makes a change of only 2 or 3 millimeters to the classical result. In short there are no ‘missing relativity terms.’ They cancel out.” General Relativity Theory is not needed."

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F

For a famous British theoretical physicists, 2 or 3 millimeters of the engineers becomes 10 km difference per day! Please watch the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc

Abdul Malek

Joseph Smulsky

“The Great Dialectician” Malek does not see that the emergence of any scientific theory is due to current necessity. And each of the theories gave new impetus to the development of science. Then contradictions in these theories accumulated and new theories were created on their basis, providing a round of spiral development. An objective scientist should highlight all these factors, and not destroy theories and shout “what a great revolutionary I am in science.” This cry is, at the very least, narcissism, far from the characteristics of a real scientist.

Newton's works contributed to the development of science. If you remove his laws, it will harm the development of science. His errors in the Law of Gravity, which Malek aggressively attacks, are corrected in the article:

Nastasenko V. (2023) On the Need for Correction of Newton's Law of Universal Gravity within Classical Physics. Journal of Astrophysics & Aerospace Technology. 07 August, 2023, DOI: 10.37421/2329-6542.2023.11.261 https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/on-the-need-for-correction-of-newtonprimes-law-of-universal-gravity-within-classical-physics-100433.html

And further this law, with clarifications, will live and benefit science.

Malek's further attacks relate to Newton's thoughts that the Universe was created by God. But in those days there was a strong faith in God and the fact that Newton believed in Him was not so bad, since in religion, in addition to blind faith, there are ideals for the moral character of a person. An honest scientist would differentiate all this as well. But it’s simpler and more effective to destroy everything and trumpet about your “brilliant” overthrow of the Idol.

Same with Einstein. The fact that his works gave a great impetus to the development of science cannot be refuted, even by thousands of Maliks. Further, contradictions in this theory were revealed, but not only Malek sees them; hundreds of critical works have been published, including:

Nastasenko, V. (2020) Analysis of the Processes of Gravity in the Framework of Curvature of Space and the Substantiation of the New Model. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 8, 2732-2743. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2020.812202

But it’s beneficial for Malek not to notice anyone and “pull the blanket” over himself. And trumpet his “genius” as a critic, anywhere and everywhere (for which he was pushed out of other ResearchGate branches).

I am not against Malek's dialectical approaches, but this is a compilation of the works of Hegel, Marx, Engels and other philosophers, Malek quotes them extensively, instead of presenting his original thoughts. Where then is his personal contribution? This supposedly his (and not the entire team of philosophers) “dialectics” only contributes to the development of science, but does not replace it, therefore it is secondary, you can do without Malek’s “pointers”. Dialectics is automatically inherent in the very process of scientific development; many scientists feel this intuitively.

Science has already dealt with the gamma factor, without Malek’s instructions, as can be seen from the article:

Nastasenko, V. (2023). About the Possible Changes in Quantum Physics And photonics. Advances in Theoretical & Computational Physics 6(4), 266-275. https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/about-the-possible-changes-in-quantum-physics-and-photonics.pdf DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33140/ATCP.07.01.02

At the quantum mechanical level of the material world, infinite compression of an object within the framework of the gamma fator is impossible, and the finite amount of compression allows it to be eliminated or reduced. An example is deviations of up to 2-3 mm, which Malepk talks about. This is already known, but Malek does not see it.

The general scientific (and not “Divine”) model of the birth of the Universe is already known. But Malek sees only the “Divine” - so it is more profitable for him to be a frantic fighter against her.

His entire “furious struggle” is a simple PR of his own exclusivity, as can be seen from the wording of this discussion “I am the only one who sees...”.

I expressed my opinion. It is up to you to decide for yourself what is true and what is not.

Some more examples of the Emperor's New Robes: The picture of the smiling face of a "Black Hole" was splashed in newspapers all around the world and the video of two “Black Holes” merging and creating gravitational waves at cosmic distances but detected by LIGO on earth even received a Nobel Award. But ironically, the Emperor himself long ago, through a journal publication, emphatically denied even the possibility that “Black Holes” could exist! "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

Albert Einstein vulgarized and corrupted modern theoretical physics and cosmology by flooding it with Kantian subjective idealism of brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories and the scholasticism of thought experiments. But long before Kant, Isaac Newton initiated subjective idealism in theoretical physics and cosmology, with the first sentence of the Foreword of his magnum opus. Principia, “Now that (since Bacon) the substantial forms (of the Aristotelians) have been abandoned from natural philosophy, mathematics should replace them to the maximum possible extent.” So, any negation of Einstein’s theories of relativity must start from Newtonian metaphysics.

Attempts at the refutation of Einstein’s SR started immediately after it was proposed, by many and of GR later by many more using the same scholastic thought experiments of Einstein; which have no basis in objective reality, but leading only to endless scholasticism that continues till today. Meanwhile, the brain-cooked and theology-supporting theories of physics, have been promoted as established theories using deceptive, contrived and even false experimental "proofs", by luring scientists with the promise of fame, fortune and funds! Any opposition Einstein’s theories is now considered as a sacrilege.

The brave Hebert Dingle famously made the last major attempt to refute SR, based on the same (ineffective) Einsteinian scholastic thought experiments, as many more like Dingle continue to do the same. But as the story goes, Dingle is supposed to have been discredited and done away with by MCCREA, W. “Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct”. Nature 216, 122–124 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1038/216122a0

In honour of Dingle, it can now be said that his ineffective methodology of Einsteinian thought experiment and scholasticism; can be replaced with quantum-dialectics, to refute not only Einstein’s SR and GR, but Newton’s metaphysics as well!

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS (2024), 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2, https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

“KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas”: https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106