For materialist dialectics and QED, there is no such category as "pure nothing". Any existence (at all) is a contradiction of Hegel's "Being-Nothing" as "the virtual particles" for the quantum vacuum are; this contradiction is resolved to a "Becoming"; which itself a contradiction of the opposites at a higher or lower level of existence and so on, without ever coming to an end. "Being-Nothing" is the first as well as the last contradiction for any existence. . Please see the RG question and the references therein

"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

Even Einstein raised the question of superluminal velocity of light to argue against the possibility of "Black Hole" formation; in a mathematically rich publication; which official physicists never refer to and deliberately avoid any reference to it! The conclusion of that paper: "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." A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

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

No. Black holes are collapsed stars. The escape velocity is the smallest speed that will allow another object not to remain in orbit about the star, but escape infinitely far 7away from it.

Interstellar space isn’t a vacuum-it has dust, at very low density, but non-zero.

Dear Abdul Malek ,

I agree but with an addition. Not only reach speed c but according to my research exceed speed c (superluminal) beyond the event horizon in order a BH to exist physically). Please correct me if I'm wrong but if the speed was exact equal to c, all the energy would be accumulated on the surface of the BH as a finite dimensions sphere and therefore the description of the inner BH as a dimensionless singularity becomes meaningless and not physical.

According to my research and assuming that BHs exist and physical real (at least up to the event horizon), all elementary matter particles beyond the event horizon of the BH are phase transitioned to FTL energy or loosely defined "superluminal photons".

What essentially IMHO a BH is doing (if they exist as described in the literature) is integrating normal matter and light back into the vacuum.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Stam Nicolis ,

"Interstellar space isn’t a vacuum-it has dust, at very low density, but non-zero."

Yes I agree but my research is not referring to this but to free space thus ideal vacuum and observed QED and QCD vacuum referring to the ZPE of the vacuum which I am certain that ZPE background energy calculation of the vacuum is excluding any random Baryonic matter found and calculates the pure vacuum ZPE.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

The vacuum state of any quantum field theory in a flat background is unique and on a curved background isn’t. Zero point energy is irrelevant on a flat background and can’t be uniquely defined on a curved background.

Black holes, are black holes, the qualifier ``cosmological" doesn’t mean anything.

So a quantum field theory in the vicinity of a black hole doesn’t have a unique ground state. This is known since the work of Hawking in the 1970s. This doesn’t have anything to do with superluminal phenomena, because the speed of light can’t be globally defined on a curved background-if it could the background would be flat. It, simply, implies that different observers define inequivalent vacuum states.

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis: you wrote, “I agree but with an addition. Not only reach speed c but according to my research exceed speed c (superluminal) beyond the event horizon in order a BH to exist physically).”

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your “addition”. I agree with Einstein, on so-called “black hole”. This is a hoax used by official physics to keep alive Einstein’s mathematical idealism-reinforced theology. Your “research”, unfortunately, is nothing but Kantian subjective idealism based on Einsteinian (very easy to perform) “thought experiment” – the pabulum of modern theoretical physics since Einstein. This pabulum feeds and indoctrinates the generations of priests in the Churches (aka, universities) around world, to keep them preoccupied with endless and meaningless medieval-type scholasticism; while the high priests (Nobel Awarded ones) “determine" through “experimental proof”, which elements of scholasticism are acceptable.

Sorry, for this rather rude response, but it is not directed at you as a person. Just take the case of “black hole”. It is supposed to be a mathematical singularity – meaning an infinite entity, that neither mathematics nor physics knows how to deal with (http://www.e-journal.org.uk/shape/papers/Special%2064.pdf); but is capable making stories (to pacify the uninitiated); of Black Cosmic Cheshire Cats and even showing the pictures of “Smile” of the Cat, even after the Cat vanishes!

I hope you heard the story of the poor star S2 orbiting the so-called “supermassive black hole” (SMBH), at the core of the Milky Way, namely, “Sagittarius A*”. In early 2018, the astronomers in America and Europe were promising us a free and once in a life time display of fireworks in the sky, when S2 inexorably was destined to come too close to the SMBH Monster and would be swallowed in a fiery gulp; which would also be the incontrovertible proof of Einstein’s theories of relativity. https://earthsky.org/space/star-s2-s0-2-single-milky-way-monster-black-hole/

Well, the brave S2 completed its journey around the SMBH with composure, on to its next lap of journey! The predictions of Einstein’s theories as usual “passed with flying colours” alright; but sans the promised “Fireworks”! https://www.sci.news/astronomy/s2-star-general-relativity-08339.html

For a rational understanding of “Nothing”, please see the references cited in the introduction of the following RG question (Shown below again: "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

Dear Abdul Malek ,

No offense taken. Your expert input is welcomed.

Debating the current BHs phenomenon consensus and in genaral any "consensus" is also what I do. No "established" theory is immune to review and revisiting. This is how science works.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Thank

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis : To expand the scope of my previous comments; there is not only not anything called "Nothing" in physics and philosophy; the term "Nothing" does not exist even in mathematics!

"THE NOTHING THAT REALLY IS!"

https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/172

• 'Your Personal Astrophysicist" Neil deGrasse Tyson "hollow slogan"

I have been in contact with people who put faith into this slogan and the kind of life they make for themselves. Pure Building castles in the air.

The people such as Nd Tyson, M Kaku... are followers of a "forged school in science" that mostly originated from Stephen Hawking. Nothing but spreading ignorance, at world level.

Now there are too many scientific, logical and rational reasons and evidence we easily have at hand to reject them, to refute them.

This new question (I wished it had been started as a discussion) is very important as it can help clarify an Intangible concept.

I personally have been thinking how many hours of life all over the globe and during recent generations have gone with wind with these imaginary things? that are none science, but business for some, such as those that I mentioned them above.

To be short, I can say, several opinions and Ideas were spoken about here that we need to talk about them in depth, such as:

"superluminal phenomena in nature"

"not even light can escape from"

"breaks known physics"

"Nothing"

"There is light, matter and vacuum in our universe"

"Maybe sci-fi Star Wars creators imagination"

"No. Black holes are collapsed stars"

"The escape velocity"

'Interstellar space isn’t a vacuum-it has dust, at very low density, but non-zero"

"Black holes, are black holes, the qualifier ``cosmological" doesn’t mean anything."

"This is known since the work of Hawking in the 1970s."

and some others, obviously all about BH, here.

I am going to share my understanding about them.

Thank you

The core topic of this question is Black Holes, so not bad to have a look at it from different angles

A "research productivity" search over it. A custom time search in Google Scholar, gives us this picture...

360 (1900-1949)

42900 (1950-1999)

606000 (2000-2023)

Where the first left number shows the number of publications and citations and parentheses time spans.

We also have non scholarly sources such as magazines and content of social media such as YouTube. It is difficult to run scientometric and altmetric methods to two the latter, (for later talk and investigation...)

The other issue regarding BHs is those who are working on them in scholarly sphere.

They could be split into four categories.

Those of classic ones (which is happening in this question "up to now"), the main feature of this category is talking around the topic with grounded and classic information (for example: "gravity is so strong that not even light can escape from a BH..."?" or "...This is known since the work of Hawking in the 1970s." )

Those who have added very strange features to BHs, features that are completely out of science and scientific method, understanding and investigation (for example what will happen to human body if fell into a BH, ranging from becoming spaghetti to seeing other universes) in this category we have S Hawking and N d Tyson.

The other are those who believe BHs are nothing but just math and physics fantasies on papers, they mostly active in discussions in scientific platforms such as here in RG.

We have another group that have new say about BHs. ranging from observing them, listening and recording its sound to those who believe we are living inside a BH. These could be found in RG discussions, local to domestic journal articles and scholars who are active in Mass/Social media.

Why don't talk, and investigate all above and other untold issues regarding BHs?

Thank you.

Dear Rahim Alijani ,

Thank you for your fruitful suggestions I agree with.

Usually the current official scientific "consensus" (if there be can something like that) is mediated to the public mainly via Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis : The Fairy Tales of "Black Hole" have deep root in the following:

1. Ignorance of the conceptual essence of Space, Time and the Infinite and hence also the Origin of Matter and Motion, please see : Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Or better the booklet if you wish, The cover page shown above.

2. Newton's one-sided and wrong theory of (much venerated) universal gravitational attraction; which Hegel called Metaphysics: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

3. The mathematical trick of Lorentz Transforms that led to the "spacetime" fantasy - an abstract geometrical construct supposedly with tangible material, mechanical, metrical etc. attributes:

"The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and cosmology". Inspire: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

Thank you for your comment. I had seen that encyclopedic article in Wikipedia, but again had a fresh look at it, for possible new changes, while as you mentioned these things are for public, at the same time it is full of errors and paradoxes that starts just from the first sentence of it.

Please compare these two:

• A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing, including light or other electromagnetic waves, has enough energy to escape it

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

• Michio Kaku: "The Big Bang Was Wrong - We live Inside A BLACK HOLE!"

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2x3QpP5t2s

I mostly do not use/cite public social/mass media for professional and scientific purposes but for refuting them.

The above example and its contradiction tells us where we are heading when dealing with "so called" black holes and at its peak which is cosmology.

You and others by now may have seen published scholarly books about those scientists who did misconducts and frauds in sciences and in the world of academia, such as

The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science (2004)

if the one above and other books share us frauds of tens to hundreds of "scientists",

people such as Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Brian Cox, Garry Nolan and a bunch of others, even by now have made/done enough misconducts and frauds to be the topic of a separate book, each...

they owe the world a lot

Thank You

Dear Abdul,

are you questioning the existence of the phenomenon of so-called "black holes", (super-)massive objects found at the center of many galaxies (and other localities in space), per se? If so, how do you conceptualize of these phenomena in terms of their physics? What are they made of? What is their structure and what are the physical processes going on inside? Just interested in potential alternative explanations...

Many thanks,

Julius

Dear Olivier Denis ,

Thank you for your expert input.

Information may not being lost inside the BH but I definitely have lost you? :)... Just kidding!

Let me please entertain another possibility?

What about, if matter and energy information is simply integrated (i.e. phase transition) back to the vacuum and this being the prime function of a BH?

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

In this question we see S Hawking name is repeatedly used by people, may be as S Hawking is seen as a leading person of science, and/or may be for justification or adding value to their opinions...

for example"

"This is known since the work of Hawking in the 1970s."

and

"It can calculate the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy;"

and

"...by the injection of Hawking Temperature to it,"

and

"...while the Hawking radiation being entangled with the fields inside black holes,"

But my years investigations regarding S Hawking scientific ideas, researches and findings, show only two possible scenarios, whether he was a dishonest scientist or a person living paranormal. In both scenarios, we have to stay away from his scientific works, obviously.

Even if we ignore those two scenarios, he was just a popular science person such as M Kaku, N D Tyson, B Cox ... that now we see how they are destroying science in the name of science.

In, in depth scientific discussions, S Hawking name is just a source of misleading, he certainly was a world celebrity that used the name of science to say whatever he wanted, with no reference.

Now people all over the world are heavily paying the price, as we here in RG, unfortunately...

Thank You

Olivier Denis

"One of Hawking's most famous discoveries is the theoretical prediction..."

Yes you are right. S Hawking had many discoveries, but just on paper. By these standards you believe or those who say "black holes are black holes" it is easy for even a school boy/girl, to be a world class scientist!. But unfortunately no one, absolutely no one see the results of those so called scientists such as Hawking in real life.

Go and read S Hawking so called scientific books, such as Brief Answers to the Big Questions, A Brief History of Time, The Theory of Everything, The Grand Design and the rest. Are all the same material, reference less books, full of nonsense, full of unscientific claims. Are these "famous discoveries"? in your own words?

Discoveries and inventions should be felt and used. Think of aircraft industry in past one hundred years, how it changed!?

Think of "so called" cosmological Black Holes? after one hundred years of advertising about them, they are still on paper, nothing has moved in reality and in real life that we see it !

We have several big problems about so called cosmology or cosmos science (if science) , such as 1- it is not like other sciences that are subject to test and examine freely, everywhere and whenever, 2- ordinary scientists do not have access to pure raw data about what is shared from big governmental agencies, 3- how our sciences such as physics and math work on cosmology? 4- but we hear of those strange things such as BHs, UFOs, Aliens, White holes... that are out of any science that we have on the earth? 5- If our sciences work for them and on them, why you and others do not show us the tangible results? 6 why they use the name science, but are not in the realm of universal science?

These and many others need special attention, deep thinking and deep practical actions, contrary to uncooked, world destroying imaginations of S Hawking, I should say "Big Questions NEED Big Answers."

• I added the answer above,

read this again from my previous answer

"Now people all over the world are heavily paying the price, as we here in RG, unfortunately..."

Olivier Denis

I was preparing an in depth answer to your comments. But I remembered you answered none of my previous questions and comments. Also I had a look at your website (introduced by you here in your RG page). But I can add 3 points.

First the article you mentioned (Steinhauer said...) is just a very simple, unacceptable, anti scientific methods sample done by that person.

So about that so called "97,000 repetitions of the experiment..."

Read more here please:

https://phys.org/news/2021-02-stationary-hawking-analog-black-hole.html

Second, based on my encounter with many people in RG discussions, it comes to me you are a real healthy person for science, but you are afraid of change and stuck to old school of science, that the name of big celebrities dictates you, to accept them, defend them and advertise them. In this case S Hawking. You do not like challenges it seems.

Third, by the content of your registered WWW site, it seems that by what you have learnt, you think of popularity, income or things like these.

So not bad, but add your personal and CV to it clearly. I did not find it. If you say it is there, (and I did not see it) it is far from being user friendly. While the graphic, colors and animations are excellent.

May be my previous published articles can give you a correct path to rebuild your site

Article Evaluation and comparison of free and commercial user interf...

For user interfaces I have many published items, full texts available free to all from my RG Publication page, but mostly in Persian, maybe google translate useful.

• Some years ago a piece from a 1974 Science journal article from a great American scientist changed my understanding about science and up to now I am entirely loyal to it and practice it. Maybe it helps you and others think deeply on the mission of us as scientists.

"The scientist must be brave enough to question and criticize anything his teachers or his society may tell him, at the risk of ostracism, denial of financial support, or worse. Only in this way can a scientist hope to make a positive contribution to his subject… There is only one established dogma in science-that scientists do not blindly accept established dogma"

Source

10.1126/science.183.4130.1164

Now we have two different groups of people here engaged. Those who want to learn, know and teach more and are not afraid of challenge, such as the researcher who started this question and the other one A Malek. But we have others here, believing that everything told and written before is solid concrete, such as O Denis and S Nicolis.

Please read this piece from Stephen Hawking book:

"steer your spaceship into a suitable black hole. It had better be a pretty big one, though or the gravitational forces will tear you into spaghetti..."(1)

and this one from YouTube

The Big Bang Was Wrong - We live Inside A BLACK HOLE! (2)

Now, regarding S Hawking Black Hole Spaghetti, see these strange questions put into Google around the globe:

Is it possible to survive spaghettification?

OR

How fast is spaghettification?

There are too many other strange stuff about black holes, such as seeing other worlds, seeing other universes, sightseeing, melting...(3 & 4)

From dying painfully in a black hole (spaghettification) we have reached living inside a black hole! Why? just because everything is on a piece of paper, several math and physics formulas and functions and equations (like photos O Denis, copy paste here) and everything is solved!

Therefore the second group here that stuck in believing but not investigating, just think of making a living and popularity, as I said before. But the big ones such as S Hawking & M Kaku & N Tyson and some others seemed/seems had/have other plans, on the peak, spreading world wide ignorance!

Thank you

(1) Stephen Hawking, (1994) "Black Holes & Baby Universes & other essays",Bantam Books, Page 110.

(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcqKNuUkYjk

(3) Neil deGrasse Tyson, (2007) "Death By Black Hole and Other Cosmic Quandaries."

(4) Paul M. Sutter, (2020) "How to Die in Space A Journey Through Dangerous Astrophysical Phenomena"

Dear all, unfortunately Olivier Denis unable to answer scientifically has started a negative role here, that is adding useless, pointless answers right after I add a reply, he hopes others skip and do not see my answers.

While I mostly wait several hours or a full day, when Olivier Denis or others comment on mine, allowing others see, read and judge.

I have been seeing this trick by some others in RG discussions. No O Denis, this is not an honest behavior in a scientific discussion and hope you give up this negative role here.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Julius Riese

Abdul Malek

Stam Nicolis

Zouhayr Hayati

Dear Rahim Alijani : Sorry, I do not participate in any discussion on science fiction. As I understand it, RG members have the right to post anything they like as long as it does not violate RG rules. The best way for me is to avoid discussion on any issue (least of all propaganda and myths) in which I have no interest.

Julius Riese :

Hi Julius, After seeing your name mentioned above, I came to notice your post directed to me. You did not highlight my name, so, I was not notified by RG.

On the question of black hole, I agree with Einstein, who in an article (1939) in Annales of Mathematics, denied the possibility black hole even in theory. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8dd0/dfafef0c53c428fdc3b58f8099aafcf7d089.pdf

More importantly, for me the theories of gravity of both Newton and Einstein are one-sided (violating Newton's third of motion, i.e., to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) and hence wrong. As I have shown in my articles (cited in my comments above), all these Fairy Tales of Big Bang creation, black/dark cosmic monsters etc., of official cosmology have their root in Newton's (one-sided and wrong) law of universal gravitational attraction. Einstein's theory of gravitation is nothing but Newton's false law on steroid.

For dialectics, any existence from the quantum to the cosmic is a contradiction of the "unity of the opposites" - i.e., both attraction and repulsion. Any single arbitrary tendency like "universal gravitational attraction" of Newton is impossible and hence the question of black hole does not even arise for dialectics.

On or near the surface of a large cosmic body the gravitational attractive force (of the body) is predominant, but as a test particle is progressively removed to outer space the opposite (repulsive), Vis Viva of Leibniz and absolute free motion of Hegel - repulsive tendencies progressively gain importance. Newton naively and against vehement opposition from Leibniz, transported Galileo's equations of "Free Fall" (valid on the Earth) to extraterrestrial dynamics. But Newton's false theory still remain in force, after few centuries!. If interested, please see some of my publications (books, journal articles) on these issues, available online.

The following article (a bit outdated), approved and praised by Halton C. Arp; would show the contrast between the essence of dialectical views against the official views on many aspects of modern cosmology:

" Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" :

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Regards,

Abdul

Dear Abdul,

many thanks for getting back on this and for your detailed explanations. If I understand you correctly (please correct me, if I am misinterpreting you), you are not denying the physical existence of extreme concentrations of matter - and thus of gravitational force exerted by them - at particular localities in the universe, but you are questioning the conceptualization/explanation of these objects/regions in space as bending spacetime to such a high degree that not only major masses (= accumulations of matter), but even electromagnetic waves are being pulled towards the centers of these objects resulting in a "snowball" effect of continuous growth, as it were. How do you account then for the astronomical observations that gave rise to the standard BH explanatory model, e.g., the observed bending of light around black holes etc.? Aren't there a lot of empirical astronomical observations that demand an explanation such as the black hole paradigm offers?

I guess what I am saying is this: There appear to be regions in space (e.g., at the center of galaxies or following the collapse of a star at the end of its lifetime) which - apart from the alleged Hawking radiation - do not seem to emit anything and into which we can't see. We have only ever observed things going in, but never things coming out of these objects/regions in space. Hence we assume that these are massive accumulations of matter exerting extreme gravitational pull (= curvature of spacetime). --> We therefore call them "black holes". We don't know what is going on inside (Which kind of physics? Is there a "singularity" inside? What does this mean? etc.). So may I ask very naively: At which point along this chain of reasoning precisely does your view/interpretation start to differ from this standard explanation? What are these regions in space apparently sitting at the center of so many galaxies and forming after the "death" of some stars? We need an explanation, don't we?

As always: I am not personally endorsing any particular views or interpretations, I am just genuinely interested in different (alternative) explanations of observable phenomena :-)

Many thanks,

Julius

Julius Riese ; Dear Julius, if you read my article in "Apeiron" cited above, you will have a general ideas of my dialectical views on cosmology, the formation, dynamics, structures etc. (coming into being and passing out of existence) of cosmic bodies; and the difference (the exact opposite) from the official view.

Light (EM radiation) is a form of matter with very little but finite mass and hence would be attracted by other forms of matter, even Newton's theory predicts the bending of starlight near the sun. The gravitational force is the strongest at the core of the galaxies, because of the accretion of matter towards the centre; but so is also the centrifugal force opposing that attraction. I have proposed a new gravitational potential in opposition to the ones by Newton and Einstein's GR. Please see: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

This new formulation of the gravitational potential (based on Kepler's Laws, Leibniz's Vis Viva and Hegel's "absolute motion of matter", abolishes the possibility of arbitrarily limitless concentration of matter at some point at the centre of the galaxies and also the need of so-called "dark matter", "dark energy" etc. Einstein made the same point in his rejection of the idea of black hole, because the velocity of matter particles would exceed the velocity of light, violating his SR!

The concentration of stars (alive or dead, as you say) and other objects is very high at the core of the galaxies and in fact is the source of ejected matter as quasars, and outflow of matter and radiation etc. So, there is no possibility of so-called black hole singularity. This is a mathematical fiction.

Dialectical cosmology is the exact opposite of causality-based cosmology as I have tried to show this in my booklet: "The Dialectical universe"

Dear Abdul Malek

By that comment I did not target you. I added all those names who had had contributions to this question and your name was among them (just a CC to all). This was to inform O Denis to give up that negative role here. As you and others see he is silent now, but thinking I am an easy target, from the beginning he played that trick. We need to wait to see.

• PS: I accept your understanding that "Big Bang creation, black/dark cosmic monsters etc.," are Fairy Tales and science fiction, also I add many others such as aliens, ufos, worm holes, white holes, other universes, bending time and space, Big Crunch.... all these none sense are disseminated via Internet. But as for years I have been working on frauds in sciences, I need to stay and inform people around, informing about frauds in so called cosmology is just a tiny share of my duty. Fortunately, daily I receive positive to extremely positive feedback from every where, therefore there is no tiredness, while I have learned many things regarding fresh forms of misconducts and frauds done by irresponsible people in science platforms, certainly worth publishing

"I WILL NOT Stay Silent So That You Can Stay Comfortable"

https://www.humancoalition.org/graphics/i-will-not-stay-silent-so-that-you-can-stay-comfortable/

Dear Rahim Alijani > "I have learned many things regarding fresh forms of misconducts and frauds done by irresponsible people in science platforms".

I have no conflict with you, in fact I even recommended some of your comments. The difference is that while you go after the individuals and people (there is no limit of them) propagating official propaganda, I usually tend and prefer to go after the theories, the institutional sources, the originators and the prophets of these propaganda!

Olivier Denis

Wait. I have not answered your today morning comment, yet.

While you are "exactly" copying the behavior of a french RG member, that started to challenge me in November 2022 and up to now, we have had several hundred exchanges and far from any conclusion.

Lets compare some digits. His Research Interest Score is some 28 times more than yours, his citations almost 700 times more than yours, his H Index 25 times more than yours,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_extraterrestrial_aliens_really_exists

With no prejudice and bias, I advise you review those exchanges.

Dear Abdul Malek You are right, in a sense both of us are hunters of misconducts and frauds.

This piece by you is great,

"I usually tend and prefer to go after the theories, the institutional sources, the originators and the prophets of these propaganda!"

May you please share us several examples? to find a better grasp.

Olivier Denis

ByeeeBBYYe

Do you have any Idea what mention and also this "?" as a punctuation mark

mean? yes/no? read this from past. An answer to your: What is your question...?

Olivier Denis

"One of Hawking's most famous discoveries is the theoretical prediction..."

Yes you are right. S Hawking had many discoveries, but just on paper. By these standards you believe or those who say "black holes are black holes" it is easy for even a school boy/girl, to be a world class scientist!. But unfortunately no one, absolutely no one see the results of those so called scientists such as Hawking in real life.

Go and read S Hawking so called scientific books, such as Brief Answers to the Big Questions, A Brief History of Time, The Theory of Everything, The Grand Design and the rest. Are all the same material, reference less books, full of nonsense, full of unscientific claims. Are these "famous discoveries"? in your own words?

Discoveries and inventions should be felt and used. Think of aircraft industry in past one hundred years, how it changed!?

Think of "so called" cosmological Black Holes? after one hundred years of advertising about them, they are still on paper, nothing has moved in reality and in real life that we see it !

We have several big problems about so called cosmology or cosmos science (if science) , such as 1- it is not like other sciences that are subject to test and examine freely, everywhere and whenever, 2- ordinary scientists do not have access to pure raw data about what is shared from big governmental agencies, 3- how our sciences such as physics and math work on cosmology? 4- but we hear of those strange things such as BHs, UFOs, Aliens, White holes... that are out of any science that we have on the earth? 5- If our sciences work for them and on them, why you and others do not show us the tangible results? 6 why they use the name science, but are not in the realm of universal science?

These and many others need special attention, deep thinking and deep practical actions, contrary to uncooked, world destroying imaginations of S Hawking, I should say "Big Questions NEED Big Answers."

• I added the answer above,

read this again from my previous answer

"Now people all over the world are heavily paying the price, as we here in RG, unfortunately..."

and also this one

Olivier Denis

I was preparing an in depth answer to your comments. But I remembered you answered none of my previous questions and comments...

Olivier Denis

You listed 7 published articles. All are in PREDATORY JOURNALS of:

1- Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science.

2-Physical Science International Journal.

Also under "Thesis" in your publication page, there is a Word file, but not any info about a thesis!

Olivier Denis I am embarrassed to have exchanges with you, even started to answer you. First I should have reviewed your RG, what I did not!. But it was worth, now I know more about a new form of misconduct and fraud in sciences.

"i understand better when i see yours...".

It is a responsibility of an honest person to reveal them to all. I believe.

But why "Physical Science International Journal" is a predatory journal?

very short:

Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science is in BEALL'S LIST of predatory journals (find it in this url)

https://beallslist.net/standalone-journals/

in BEALL'S LIST we see this

"Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science (JAMCS) (associated with ScienceDomain International)"

Now we should know that publisher of both journals of

Physical Science International Journal &

Journal of Advances in Mathematics and Computer Science

is "science domain International"

https://www.sciencedomain.org

again we see the name of this publisher in BEALL'S LIST with this info:

"ScienceDomain International (Science Domain International, SDI) also here and here"

available in this url

https://beallslist.net/#update

Also visit these two links of contact pages of the two journals and enjoy similarities

https://journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/about/contact

https://journaljamcs.com/index.php/JAMCS/about/contact

So when all a publisher is predatory, all journals of which are predatory.

"science domain International", https://www.sciencedomain.org, is not in the list

""Last updated December 8, 2021""

https://beallslist.net/#update

hmm....!!!

Not only in 2021 updated list sciencedomain.org is available, but also another linked Book publisher to Science domain has been included, there we read:

"Book Publisher International (BookPI) (linked to ScienceDomain International, another predatory publisher)"

https://beallslist.net/#update

Also you can find all in those three photos I have attached.

• Our journey to investigate predatory publishing goes on in coming Monday.

The real Journal Impact Factor metric (be careful with variants used that are not the real JIF metric) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

in my opinion takes care about all these Journal credibility matters and any kind of public blacklists become superfluous. Also keep in mind as an additional measure that citations (or self-citations) made inside articles by Journals not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science Clarivate, are not recorded and contributed to the referenced research papers and their authors.

You can use a search engine like https://www.resurchify.com/if/impact-factor-search to look up valid IF of Journals and publishers. If you prime concern is about credibility of the publisher and can't find any IF for the specific publisher or it is not at a satisfactory level for you (at least IF of 1) then you as a reader or author can not bother to read or write an article on this Journal.

Nevertheless, it is unfair as long as there are always quite a lot exception of such articles published in non-IF Journals (even predatory) to put all these articles in one sac. One should base his/her final scientific evaluation of a research work on personal judgement after studying it. It maybe a waste of time but it is the most trustworthy process. There are historically many examples out there of articles published in reputed Journals even Nature that are proved to be non credible research.

Also, it is very difficult for a relative new unkown researcher/scholar to put out in the mainstream literature contraversial fundamentall research and IMHO, research in general even that seems today contraversial should not be censored and let to be published on record to be judjed by time and history in the future. There will be always hiddden jems in the literature we need to review and revisit.

Me myself have both contraversial and non-contraversial research published. My non-contraversial research I have published in respected Elsevier and IOP Journals with IF up to 5. My contraversial research after trying to publish in a reputed Journal for a year I choose to publish with low impact factor (less than 1) or non-existing IF at all journals.

This is because I am willing to risk my credibility as an author and researcher in favor of getting my work published on record for future reference. My research is more important to me than being regarded as credible by others. It is a general flaw of my character always seeking the extra-oridinary.

So, there is no need to go off-topic here on my question thread with blacklists and so on and personal insults, "fraud" etc. Please keep the discussion fruitful. A comment like "I have read some of you research and found it flawed (and why?)" would suffice.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil Markoulakis

It seems all your writing refers to me. While cultures of countries are different, even cities and neighborhoods within a given city have their own diversities, but in science we have a universal culture, a part of which is peer review, a part of this in turn is post peer review, what I am doing.

Although I did not have you and your scientific works in my mind, it seems you have a misunderstanding about my previous messages here. My Idea about you was what I wrote before and still is there for your reference. Certainly if I meant you I was able enough to mention you, like what I do every where in RG discussions.

Have a look at mass media such as cnn, bbc, wd, al Jazeera, france 24 and many others, they roast people with any possible hard questions to find and get realities!

Why we do not have this culture here? Of course I do it in other discussions and this is first time I see a person says MY QUESTION!

Why when science and scientific research is far more important than anything else, people like you, me and many others only like positive feed backs? like others to clap hands for us?

You said, So, there is no need to go off-topic here on my question thread with blacklists and so on and personal insults, "fraud" etc. Please keep the discussion fruitful.

This is questionable, because topics and subjects are intertwined to each other. When your friend O Denis makes an unacceptable move, he should receive equal answer. Why he is silent now? Look at this written piece by your friend O Denis:

"It will be nice to Update this update....from 2016

Your Update seems OUTDate"

Is beall's list of predatory journals mine? to update it? look at the last word by him "OUTDate" why in this form? in his imagination to ridicule me! There are other even 2023 resources that have 'the same findings" as Bealls list had in 2016.

Also I strongly suggest you and others to have a simple search in just RG questions and discussions with this phrase "black holes"

More than 10 questions and discussions in just two previous months on the topic of BHs. One of them asked by your friend! All have received no answer, or just a few answers, and several to tens reads! Now look at yours (stats) here, in your statement "here on my question thread".

Do you think people are here just for fairy tales?

While if you think I am off-topic, simply report me to RG. encouragements or discouragements do not impress me at all.

Do you know why Jeffrey Beall gave up updating his list? read from his own writing" as in an interview in 2018, Beall stated that

"my university began to attack me in several ways. They launched a research misconduct investigation against me (after seven months, the result of the investigation was that no misconduct had occurred). They also put an unqualified, mendacious supervisor over me, and he constantly attacked and harassed me. I decided I could no longer safely publish the list with my university threatening me in these ways."[28] Beall has not reactivated the list"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beall%27s_List

This is Beall view, yours is what you wrote and mine is this, by professor SG Brush of Maryland University (as shared before):

"The scientist must be brave enough to question and criticize anything his teachers or his society may tell him, at the risk of ostracism, denial of financial support, or worse. Only in this way can a scientist hope to make a positive contribution to his subject…"

• FYI: I am going to add nothing to YOUR QUESTION, unless receives offense. If you and others are eager can come to discussions that I had started in 2021 and 2022 all about misconducts and frauds in sciences and not only you will be free to add every thing you like, I will scientifically and statistically answer your opinion about predatory journals and their destructive impacts on us all over the world.

Best wishes for honest researchers

“…The real Journal Impact Factor metric (be careful with variants used that are not the real JIF metric) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor in my opinion takes care about all these Journal credibility matters and any kind of public blacklists become superfluous. Also keep in mind as an additional measure that citations (or self-citations) made inside articles by Journals not indexed in Scopus or Web of Science Clarivate, are not recorded and contributed to the referenced research papers and their authors.. .”

- etc.

In this case recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/ChatGPT_and_beyond/5, page 5, is well relevant to what really the “Impact Factor metrics”, etc., are…

Cheers