This question seems to be an opinion-based or philosophical inquiry rather than a factual statement. Without more information, it is not possible to determine if the premise of the question is accurate or to provide a definitive answer.

Mohana Sundaram P ,

yes it looks like a frustration of somebody who does not understand what proving wrong means. Einstein's light clock brings to a paradox especially if implemented in a medium...even Crenshaw fell in the trap by writing this paper

Preprint Reconciliation of the Rosen and Laue theories of special rel...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_twin-effect_in_water_cannot_be_different_than_the_one_in_vacuum_what_are_the_consequences_on_Lorentz_Transformations

Reply is in the two rebuttal papers in my profile. If you are a believer in relativity then there is an open challenge standing since 2012 also available in my profile.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "If you are a believer in relativity then there is an open challenge standing since 2012 also available in my profile."

As a reminder, a few months ago you cowardly fled after commenting on my open challenge: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Open_challenge_for_all_anti-relativists2

I'm still waiting!

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Regarding your "open challenge", I already responded to it a few months ago but, as usual, you cowardly fled.

Here is my response attached (again).

Hahaha

The Lorentz transformation is the mathematical possibility but it is irrational, illogical and against the experimental observations e. g. Transverse Doppler effect..... Challenge finished.

Stefano Quattrini

Again, that non-peer-reviewed paper?

V. G. Rousseau,

Again trying to spread the false? https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/87/4/296/1039916/Reconciliation-of-the-Rosen-and-Laue-theories-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext

V. G.

Anybody can see the paper titled Experimental & Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe is published in a peer-reviewed journal or not. The paper is available in my profile.

V. G.

There is another rebuttal paper available in my profile which too is published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Challenge finished completely.

Stefano Quattrini

Why isn't the preprint available?

V. G. Rousseau ,

Stefano Quattrini

I'm not changing the topic: After your numerous past failures to prove Relativity wrong, you are proposing another paper, so I want to read it. But as I mentioned, the link that you provided was not available for download.

Now that you provided the link to a downloadable version, I'm gonna read it.

Stefano Quattrini

Ok, so I skimmed that paper, and I don't see anything in it that proves Relativity wrong. So, what's your point?

V. G. Rousseau ,

I wrote: "Einstein's light clock brings to a paradox especially if implemented in a medium...even Crenshaw fell in the trap by writing this paper.."

so try to understand what this guy wrote... and try to answer the question:

should the Lorentz Factor be "adapted" according to the speed of light in the medium if the observer moves inside a medium?

Stefano Quattrini

> "should the Lorentz Factor be "adapted" according to the speed of the observer if one moves inside a medium?"

Of course not! The “adapted Lorentz factor” with c/n is an effective tool for describing observers who only interact with fields inside a medium, but the real Lorentz factor in special relativity is always defined with respect to c. Relativity still holds.

Can't you understand what an "effective theory is"?

V. G. Rousseau ,

TYPO error from my side... I repeat the question:

"Should the Lorentz Factor be "adapted" according to the speed of light in the medium if the observer moves inside a medium?"

V. G.

Here is the link to the open challenge

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385346617_OPEN_CHALLENGE#fullTextFileContent

V. G.

Even if you spend the whole life you cannot disprove the open challenge.

Stefano Quattrini

> "Should the Lorentz Factor be "adapted" according to the speed of light in the medium if the observer moves inside a medium?"

No, the “adapted Lorentz factor” with c/n is an effective approximation, not a fundamental law.

If you insist on describing physics using only internal measurements inside a continuous medium, you can build an effective model where c/n plays the role of a limiting signal speed. But that is just a computational convenience, like using macroscopic Maxwell’s equations with D, H instead of summing over every electron. Maxwell's equations in their original form are still valid if all the sources of the medium are taken into account. They are surely impractical to use that way, but definitely not wrong.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

I already answered to your "open challenge". Here is attached again my response.

P.S: You are still fleeing from my challenge.

V. G. Rousseau ,

First of all let's clarify one thing: it is an experimental evidence that light speed is slowed down in refracting media according to the refracting index hence a lower speed is not an approximation in general.

I understand from your "NO", that it is a mistake to use such reduced speed in the Lorentz Factor, correct?

Stefano Quattrini

> "it is an experimental evidence that light speed is slowed down in refracting media according to the refracting index hence a lower speed is not an approximation in general."

The reduced velocity v=c/n in a medium is not a new universal constant, it’s the result of photons scattering from charges in the material. Between scatterings, photons still move at c. The slower average speed is an emergent property of the medium, not spacetime itself. This is an effective theory. The actual speed of light inside the medium is still c.

> "I understand from your "NO", that it is a mistake to use such reduced speed in the Lorentz Factor, correct?"

It is not a mistake, it is an approximation, an effective theory that is convenient.

V. G.

Writing some nonsense on ResearchGate discussion forum is not the rebuttal because open challenge is based on papers published in peer-reviewed journals the rebuttal has to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

V. G.

Read the following paper and put your acceptance of open challenge in your an**.

Experimental & theoretical evidences of fallacy of space-time concept and actual state of existence of the physical universe

It is available in my profile of ResearchGate besides a dozen of science websites and also on peer-reviewed journal site with the address www.indjst.org.

Dear Mohammad Shafiq Khan,

> "Writing some nonsense on ResearchGate discussion forum is not the rebuttal because open challenge is based on papers published in peer-reviewed journals the rebuttal has to be published in a peer-reviewed journal."

Do you think that you can make non-peer-reviewed attacks on the Theory of Relativity, and demand for the response to be peer-reviewed and published? Seriously?

As I already mentioned in the past, your Indian journal has very poor ratings. See attachment for reference.

V. G.

Papers published in ANY peer-reviewed Journal plus the open challenge which is sent to almost all universities of the world including the professors of physics of leading universities of the world makes the papers better than papers published nature physics or physical review. The open challenge is standing since 2012 and those physicists who accepted the open challenge have failed miserably. The fate of two physicists who accepted the open challenge is in my profile as rebuttals. Let you make any non biased person a judge and hear from him.

Pure nonsense cannot be the rebuttal of the open challenge based on papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

You have mentioned the name of India for your information India too is a nuclear power and check the presence of Indians in different universities of the world.

Your challenge has been faulted. The end.

Reminder: You still fled like a coward instead of faulting mine, hence the title of the present thread.

V. G. Rousseau ,

so, according to you it is not a mistake to use the Lorentz factor with a different speed of light.

So the result is a different "time-dilation" which according to Cranshaw must occur, a consequence of Einstein's clock in the medium with a different speed of light?

Stefano Quattrini

> "So the result is a different "time-dilation" which according to Cranshaw must occur, a consequence of Einstein's clock in the medium with a different speed of light?"

You are unsuccessfully trying to put in my mouth words that I didn't say!

1. Fundamental Lorentz factor is always with c. The Lorentz transformations follow from the principle of relativity and the invariance of Maxwell’s equations in vacuum. The invariant speed is c, period. If you change that to c/n, you’re no longer doing relativity, you’re doing an effective approximation for wave propagation in a medium that has a preferred rest frame.

2. What happens in a medium.

• Light in a medium does move more slowly on average (c/n), but that’s because of interactions with charges in the material. Between those scatterings, photons still move at c.
• The medium defines an pseudo "absolute" rest frame (the rest frame of the atoms). That means the relativity principle with c/n does not hold since there is not such a thing as an absolute rest frame. You can build an effective “Lorentz factor” with c/n, but it does not correspond to real time dilation of clocks or moving particles.

3. Experimental check. If the “Lorentz factor with c/n” were fundamental, then moving clocks inside glass, water, or any medium would tick differently depending on refractive index. That would mean muon lifetime dilation would change inside air, water, or solid matter. It doesn’t, all precision tests (muons in air, particle beams in accelerators, GPS satellites) confirm the universal factor with c.

4. On Cranshaw. The Cranshaw et al. experiment (Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 163 (1960)) was not showing “new time dilation in a medium”, it was measuring the relativistic Doppler effect and time dilation of a Mössbauer gamma source in motion. Their result confirmed Einstein’s factor with c, not with c/n.

Once again, you can model light propagation in a medium using an effective speed and even build an “effective Lorentz factor” for convenience, but that does not imply real clocks experience different time dilation. All experiments show the only correct Lorentz factor is the one with vacuum c.

V. G.

Please read the open challenge and the papers on the basis of which open challenge is based. Read also two rebuttals to two physicists who accepted the open challenge. This will take a month for your IQ level persons to read and understand. Needless to mention that you have to read the formal papers published by the acceptors of open challenge. Then see your nonsense. So after you go through all material then come up with a rebuttal paper published in a peer-reviewed journal then come here with your nonsense and you get a befitting reply.

V. G.

Mind you that there are two experiments which nullify the validity of Lorentz factor as reported by me in the paper Experimental & Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of Physical Universe. Experiments are those by P. A. Davies (1975 and later) and Hartwig Thim (2002 and 2003) for absence of transverse Doppler effect.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

The evidence of the validity of the Theory of Relativity is overwhelming. Quit making a fool of yourself in front of the entire web!

V.G.

There is not a single experimental evidence of the contraction of space in the direction of motion which Theory of Relativity predicts since last one hundred twenty year. Overwhelming evidence??????

V. G.

You are making yourself a crackpot here on ResearchGate. Read the discussion so far. Come when you have the the evidence of space contraction in the direction of motion.

V. G.

Here is what anti relativity demand.

Kindly send this information to every office bearer of Nobel prize for physics and Physiology & medicine so that they cannot say afterwards that they did not know about this. Once Nobel prize is deservingly given to the discovery of aether that will be the end of Big Bang Theory the foundation of atheistic main-stream physics. Acceptance of discovery of aether, proved without any doubt whatsoever, will be beginning of theistic physics. I don't care whether they give me the Nobel prize or not but they should accept the truth for denying the truth knowingly they have to kill their conscience for which they will be answerable before God. Their conscience will curse the nominators and selectors of Nobel prize for physics for not giving the prize to the discoverer of the aether throughout their life though ultimately the discovery of aether will have to be awarded the Nobel prize. Let the Nobel prize organisation be truthful and if this will not awaken the conscience of the nominators and selectors then nothing can. I do realise the problem of Nobel prize organisations because all the nominators will have to be from the main-stream physics who do not want to know anything about what dissident physicists say or write. I being the dissident physicist so all the nominators would not like to include me in the list. For this hurdle I have the rational solution which is that those nominators be selected who accept my 'open challenge' and prove me wrong. It is worthwhile to mention here that I have put forward an open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics i.e. main-stream physics in 2012 which is standing till today.

Following is the link to my publications including my open challenge

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Khan-516/research

(Please also share this link with every university and science college of the world including research institutions of the world like NASA, ESA, CERN, FERMILAB etc.)

After the discovery of the existence of aether, the electric dipoles & fifth constituent of universe, in the year 2011 and putting forward the open challenge in 2012 to the adopted paradigm of physics I thought the prestigious Nobel prize Organisation will realise the importance of my discovery some day. But I waited for thirteen years but nothing happened though the open challenge continues to be standing till date. I did approach my government, wherein pathetic conditions prevail so far as education and science & technology are concerned, and there also nothing happened. Now I have decided to claim the Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine as a matter of right.

I want that all the professionals should recommend me for award of Nobel prizes in physics and Physiology & medicine for following discoveries and scientific research.

1. Discovery of aether, the electric dipoles as fifth constituent of the universe, without any doubt whatsoever in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled "Michelson-Morley Experiment; A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment' and substantiated by my several published papers.

2. Consequent upon discovery of aether, the electric dipoles, light/radiation has been shown to be the electromagnetic wave motion propagating in the electric dipoles of aether. Also consequent upon the discovery of aether all the four forces of nature are reduced to one force i. e. electromagnetic force in the scientific research paper titled 'Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things and Living Things'.

3. The Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Minkowski geometry, Space-time Concept, Dark Matter and Dark Energy including the famous formula E=mc^2 are shown to be absolutely baseless in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled 'Experimental and Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' This paper also substantiates the existence of aether theoretically and experimentally.

4. A correct and flawless theory of cosmology has been proposed and published in the peer-reviewed journal titled 'Energy Theory of Matter and Cosmology'

5. A different paradigm of biological sciences has been proposed and published in the paper titled 'Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life' of which the revised version is under process wherein a metaphysical substance has been introduced, given the name of 'energy', which explains the consciousness, instincts, gowth, self-repair, cell function but above all biological laws This is the only alternative to explain the above-mentioned phenomena of life in all animal species including humans by reviving vitalism and called Revitalism. The laws of nature having been reduced to one electromagnetic force can in no case explain all phenomena of life.

The above-mentioned papers and other papers are available on journal site of Indian Journal of Science and Technology, General Science Journal, Natural Philosophers Database , ResearchGate, SlideShare, viXra, Elixir Online Publishing journal, Academia.edu etc in my profile.

On the basis of above-mentioned work I feel it is my right to claim the Nobel prizes as the adopted paradigm of physics is under open challenge which is standing since 2012 and it has been defended against several attempts of trying to disprove me.

With Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan (IFS)

M.Sc (physics) M.Sc (forestry)

Ex. Director, Writer, Scientist, Philosopher and above all a Philanthropist.

Note:- This may also be sent to all those who are concerned with nomination and selection of Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine. Please find out their emails or pages on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, twitter, LinkedIn etc. and send them this post.

Every clock is affected by time dilation if a light clock is dilated. This was a consequence of Lorentx aether theory.

V. G. Rousseau

Never referred to Cranshaw (1960) but to Crenshaw (2019)

whose paper I link again for clarity

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/87/4/296/1039916/Reconciliation-of-the-Rosen-and-Laue-theories-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext

TEXT IN

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.05438

I basically agree, that there is no room for a Lorentz factor not based on the value of the SOL in vacuum, it is a mistake to modify it and use it..

The use of another factor would bring to some unsurmountable paradoxes..

Nevertheless Crenshaw by following Einstein's gedanken experiment about the ligth clock, he applies it to a continuum dielectric considering the different speed of light in the dielectric and finds correctly the modified Lorentz Factor.

Basically Crenshaw finds something wrong by following the same procedure Einstein proposed (light-clock) for the propagation of light in vacuum.. that inevitably invalidates also Einstein's light clock proposal.

Time dilation due to the motion of the observer with respect to the absolute reference frame of aether at rest is real where as contraction of space in the direction of motion of the observer is absolutely baseless.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Length contraction is not the only prediction of Relativity, poor loser. And muons being able to cross 15 km of atmostphere in less than 2.2 microseconds at 99.9% of the speed of light proves that the distance is contracted in their frame.

Stefano Quattrini Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Without QFT, today would be like this:

• Computers: Possibly 1970s-level at best — kilohertz-to-megahertz speeds, not gigahertz multi-core processors.
• Medicine: No high-resolution MRI or PET; cancer detection and neuroscience decades behind.
• Energy: Nuclear fission still used; fusion research hopelessly stuck.
• Physics: Space programs could exist, but GPS would be less accurate without relativistic/QFT atomic clock precision.
• Philosophy of science: A bigger crisis — “why do our equations break when relativity and quantum mechanics meet?” That unsolved puzzle would paralyze physics like a brick wall.

✅ So in short: without QFT, we’d probably be living in a world with 1950s-level tech stretched forward — vacuum tubes or crude transistors, weaker medical imaging, no modern internet, no particle physics Standard Model, and almost no quantum computing.

So, if y'all want to be consistent with your beliefs, turn off all your modern electronic devices.

V. G.

Muon motion is concerned with time dilation and it has nothing to do with space contraction. Do you see space contraction when muon comes to earth. A nonsense person only will conclude the space contraction from muon increase in half life.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "Muon motion is concerned with time dilation and it has nothing to do with space contraction."

You just accidentally recognized that muon is concerned with time dilation. That's right, the muon's proper time that we observe in our frame is dilated. Now, move to the next step: The atmosphere's proper length that the muon observes in its own frame is contracted.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan Stefano Quattrini

V. G.

Theory of relativity has been proved incorrect experimentally, theoretically, mathematically and rationally. No matter what you say can make it a correct theory. There is one way that is accept the open challenge and produce a rebuttal paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal; the condition of publication in a peer-reviewed journal is because open challenge is based on papers published in peer-reviewed journals.

More arguments means nonsense and I have no time for your nonsense.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "Theory of relativity has been proved incorrect experimentally, theoretically, mathematically and rationally."

You are a blatant liar!

V. G.

Nonsense has started pouring in.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "Nonsense has started pouring in."

Come back when you will manage to show us a laser beam that propagates in vacuum at a speed of 1 m/s, which is possible according to your religion. That should be a piece of cake for you, Mr. h-index=4 credentials=0.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

I have the pleasure to announce that your profile on the Website BlueMoonshine has been created: https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php

Click on your name to discover your profile, and enjoy.

V. G.

Nonsense will continue to pour that is why anti- relativist flee. No time to indulge in nonsense.

V. G. Rousseau ,

VERY NICE!

STEFANO QUATTRINI is cowardly fleeing by blocking me after I proved him wrong.

He said: "From now on I will exclude you the possiblity to reference my link"

This totally justifies the title of this thread!

V. G.

The blueshine shit is done by a physicist after realising that all the physicists of the world cannot do anything about the open challenge and that is why he stopped so low. Whatever they do open challenge will continue to be standing till they accept Einstein was a fraud and trickster.

V. G.

Moral of the story.

Since you are a nonsense fellow using bad arguments & language that is why anti- relativists are fleeing.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "Whatever they do open challenge will continue to be standing till they accept Einstein was a fraud and trickster."

Can you tell us which verse in your Quran mentions this?

V. G.

Yes verse 41-53 of Quran tells us about existence of aether and 'energy' as the source of life. Read my publications to be sure that Quran contains the final truth about science and everything in the universe and hereafter.

V. G.

There are several such websites wherein they criticize me because they have no answer to my open challenge. See to yourself since you can't do anything about open challenge you do all nonsense instead of accepting the open challenge.

@Russeau

the justification of the unscientific behavior of Russeau is quite evident.

Put in front of a real problem in which the very gist of SR is put under serious scrutiny:

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/87/4/296/1039916/Reconciliation-of-the-Rosen-and-Laue-theories-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext

TEXT IN

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.05438

the only thing he is able to do is to divert the attention to ad personam attacks...

Federico Comparsi ,

don't you think that this guy @Russeau, is not even deserving to be ascribed in the Scientific community for his very frustrated behaviour?

Basically the "Coward" he is trying to depict is himself not willing to discuss seriously about Crenshaw (2020) blunder.

@Stefano I didn’t read all the discussion, but it is well known that there is a consistent aether interpretation pf relativity.

Federico Comparsi ,

basically the original interpretation by Larmor and Lorentz supported by DeBroglie, Bohm and Bell is inevitable.

There is a background. The speed of light invariance for every observer is just an artifact. It is falsified in ECI frame..

Preprint SAGNAC EFFECT REAL AND APPARENT CLOCKS DE-SYNCHRONIZATION

The real transformations (which do not involve light signals) are Tangherlini directly derived from General Relativity. They can be directly derived from Lorentz Larmor version of LT by dropping the term vx'/c2 which is there to support the finite speed of propagation of light.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

There is a long time I read it, but if I remember well, your Quran also says that:

- The sun sets in water.

- Women ejaculate semen.

- The Earth was created before the stars.

- ... and many other scientific mistakes.

V. G.

Besides being senseless you are also suffering from Islamophobia. So far as your Islamophobia is concerned I have a treatment for you as it is in the form of a book titled Natural World Order and The Islamic Thought which you can read on my profile. I am author of this book fortunately and you can read the book on SlideShare also. This is the free treatment for your disease.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "So far as your Islamophobia is concerned"

So, pointing out the numerous mistakes in the so-called "perfect book" is what you call Islamophobia?

> "you can read the book on SlideShare also."

No, thanks. I won't waste my time on that!

V. G.

But you are suffering from Islamophobia ànd remember that I offered you to treat your disease. On the day of judgement I will give the witness to the Creator that I offered you the free treatment but you refused.

All members of ResearchGate

Kindly read my "Moral of the story" comment and also the discussion and decide for yourself.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "On the day of judgement I will give the witness to the Creator that I offered you the free treatment but you refused."

See attached picture!

V. G. Rousseau : Firstly, congrats on getting a paper published.

However, if your star is rising, there's something that you desperately need to know about the mainstream relativity folks that you'll be rubbing shoulders with. For your own self-protection.

1: These guys lie. Sometimes reflexively. Theoretical physicists lie. Experimental physicists lie. Anyone with a broad knowledge of relativity theory can see exactly where, when and why they lie in their papers to get the results they want to prove. They lie about people they consider damaging, and if you get on their wrong side, they'll lie about you, too.

2: They also bullshit. A lot. Most of them seem to have "imposter syndrome", but with good cause, because they are, actually, faking it. Most of them don't actually understand the principles associated with what they are doing (or not doing).

This is actually verified by the Gamow affair. Gamow popularised a faulty misinterpretation of special relativity and its optical predictions, which he thought he'd been taught was the right version. It didn't get shot down by peer review until Terrell published his 1959 paper. It took half a century to issue a correction. And in 1994, when I was visiting world-class physics departments, they all had the same objection to my proposal -- that my physical description disagreed with the Gamow narrative and was therefore wrong. Gamow's faulty math was right "otherwise particle accelerators would work".

They were still teaching wrong "pseudo-SR" math 35 years after it had been overturned by peer review. These people genuinely have no idea what they are doing, they just take whatever they are taught and declare that if it wasn't true, the stars wouldn't shine.

3: Like Trump, they never want to admit mistakes. "Never apologise, never retract, always declare victory." They will defend wrong arguments to the death if they support a mainstream view, and will support any physics person who supports the status quo and attacks outsiders, even if that person is obviously a fraud themselves, because they are "doing useful work".

The best way to be a fraudster in phsyucs is not to be at the fringe, but to be supporting "good mainstream theories", and attacking their opponents. That way, even if you get found out, everyone will cover up for you.

If you can prove that a major physics personality has screwed up a calculation somewhere, you will be their mortal enemy and the enemy of their students and colleagues and associates for the rest of your life. They will try to screw you over in any way possible. Which brings us to:

4: Many of these people have the personal ethics of skunks. Just as people in the RC church covered up child abuse scandals because they felt that the reputation of the Church was more important than the truth, some physics folk feel the same way about protecting the reputation of mainstream physics, even if it means defending things that aren't true.

There are some wonderful, wonderful people in physics ... but I figure that they are trying to compensate for the appalling behaviour of the other lot. This happens a lot in academia, the higher you rise, the worst people's personal behaviours, because they increasingly see themselves as being above petty social rules. Look up some philosophy biographies and you realise how many famous modern philosophers used their jobs to get laid. Try to find a famous philosophy professor around the turn of the century, who didn't screw all his "pretty" students and use philosophy clubs to "share" each year's "fresh meat" with their colleagues.

The more rarefied the academic environment, the more people behave like chimpanzees: their priorities are reputation, status, protection of resources (grants, positions etc), and the repulsion of outside intruders. Like chimpanzees, they respond to an outside threat by throwing poop.

5. Their worldview is not science-based. It can't be science-based because they can't understand the science. The Gamow episode demonstrated that for a significant proportion of the SR community, their worldview was faith-based. They believed that what they were told MUST be true, and they either didn't check, or they understood that something seemed wrong, but didn't want to make themselves a target by pointing it out.

They had faith that the scientific community couldn't have gotten something badly wrong. In reality, every community gets stuff wrong, the search for truth is a gradual process of correction after correction.

The world of relativity theory has stopped making those corrections. And that's why there's been almost no real progress in the subject for the last sixty years.

6. They don't actually care about truth, mathematical, geometrical, logical, or evidence-based. What they care about is convenience and maintaining the status quo, because they know that they don't even understand Einstein's system , so if reality is any more sophisticated than that, they'll have no chance grasping it. Worse, if the replacement system turns out to be easier to grasp, they'll be overtaken by all their students. They're just hanging on until retirement and pension, after which it all becomes someone else's problem.

What they feel is important is a good convincing narrative that makes that standard view (whatever that view is) seem compelling. If the narrative is known to be wrong, well, that's of secondary importance. no harm, no foul.

7. Anyone who tries to rock the boat is the enemy. They do not want a scientific revolution. They do not want disruptive change. Because it's disruptive, and they like things the way they are. V.G., if you ever actually come up with a breakthrough, they'll probably try to fuck you over. Some people were still trying to fuck Hawking over for his "crimes" against GR right up until he eventually died.

8. These are predominantly not bright people. They are often exceedingly clever, with incredible technical skills, but they aren't bright. Sakaharov and Oppenheimer were so dumb, their respective military handlers managed to outwit them both into working on weapons of mass destruction, after the war was over, even though both were basically pacifists. They don't grasp context, they can't see the forest because there are trees in the way, blocking their view.

I've been privileged to know a number of incredibly bright people over the years, and they almost all have two things in common: (a) they turn out to have super-duper physics or math qualifications, and (b) they got the hell out of those communities as soon as they got their degrees. Because if you are a potential high-flyer, and you realise that you are surrounded by jealous zombies, and those zombies have the power to wreck your career if they decide that they don't like you ... and chances are, they WON'T like you, because you threaten their beloved stasis ... you're better off "doing a Yuri Milner", leaving physics, becoming a billionaire through business, and then funding people to work on the problems you'd like to see solved.

The people who leave physics to get rich don't do it for the money. They do it for the sense of personal freedom that they get from not having to have everything they do scrutinised and authorised by the Zombie Army. It's because outside of physics, they are actually allowed to achieve stuff.

Now there are SOME narrow areas of theoretical physics where it's still possible to do good work and get published. And well done to the people who've found those niches. But they tend to be in regions where almost nobody understands the subject other than the authors, so they are able to sneak stuff past peer review that, if the reviewers actually understood what they were reading, would reject for being not compatible with current theory.

I don't actually know what the answer is. Mass stupidity is always a difficult one to solve, especially when the zombies whose positions you're trying to shift know that as long as none of them give in, and they all hold a united front against any threats, they all, collectively, automatically win.

There's always defunding ... but we need to keep the institutions going for the benefit of future generations who might be less dim. So that's not really an option.

On the plus side, the generation that suffered the most brain damage from ethyl lead in the atmosphere are now beginning to age, and will start dying off, so maybe we'll see a generational increase in physics student intake IQs, and maybe some of those brighter kids will be less tolerant of their supposed "elders and betters", and will call them out on their apparent inability to discover anything worthwhile for the last sixty years.

Eric Baird

I won't waste by time reading all your nonsense, but from what I skimmed:

- "These guys lie": Well, you are the liar in here.

- "They also bullshit": It appears that you are the imposter. You are the liar. You present yourself as a researcher, but you don't have any credentials. You have no clue what you are talking about, and yet you want everyone to believe that you know better than the most brilliant minds of the 20th century.

- "they never want to admit mistakes": You are just describing your own community. Namely, we have never seen an anti-relativist admitting he's wrong.

- "Their worldview is not science-based": That fits pretty much like you. You are just making statements by using the argument of authority (authority that you don't have at all).

- "They don't actually care about truth": If you believe that Relativity is not the truth, then perhaps you should stops using all your modern electronics devices which wouldn't exist without it. This starts with the device that you are using in order to post your bullshit.

BTW, you haven't presented a single proof of your anti-relativist religion!

V. G. Rousseau : " ... numerous past failures to prove Relativity wrong ... "

V.G., To characterise the question as being about "relativity: good or bad" is painfully wrong. It suggests that you either don't understand the context, or are deliberately trying, like Einstein, to obfuscate.

One of Einstein's clever linguistic tricks, which worked far too well on dumb linguistically-oriented physics folk, was to subvert the language, to hijack technical terms and change the meanings of words to that they supported his theories, rtaher than someone else's.

To say that "relativity has never been proved wrong" is either an empty statement of an absurdity, because we know damned well that there have been several different theories of relaitvity, and since they disagree, most relativity theories MUST be wrong.

• Newton's 1704 relativistic curved-space scalar theory of gravity-and-optics was wrong because it got the speed of light in glass back-to-front.
• Nineteenth-century Ballistic Emitter Theory was wrong because it gave the wrong relative signal flight-times for double star systems
• Fresnel's attempt to relativise refractive index is considered wrong, even though Einstein nicked his equations and declared then right in the context of SR.
• Lorentz aether theory is considered wrong, because it uses the concept of an absolute aether and global lightspeed constancy ... although Einstein ceded that if operated properly, LET gave the same results as SR.
• Hertzian relativity gives different predictions to Lorentzian relativity, so at least one of the two must be wrong.
• Special relativity is incompatible with the General Principle of Relaitvity (GPoR) that GR is supposed to be based on, because the SR shift predictions let us prove geometrically that a forcibly-accelerated body cannot possibly warp spacetime, as the SR lightbeam geometry around the body remains perfectly flat, meaning that it is marking "a curved path through flat spacetime". With the SR relationships, the accelerated observer sees curvature, but an inertial bystander alongside doesn't, proving that with the SR equations acceleration is absolute not relative, and there's no such thing as accelerative gravitomagnetism. That destroys the relativity of acceleration, which is part of the GPoR. Without the GPoR we don't have a general theory of relativity.
• So either SR is right and the GPoR is wrong, or the GPoR is right and SR is wrong. Or they are both wrong.
• ... But either way we know that GR1916 is wrong, because it defines itself as agreeing with both the GPoR and with the SR shift equations, which is a geometrical impossibility.
• Also, Einstein's system fails in the presence of gravitational waves, because g-waves carry energy out of a system in forward time and add energy to a system in reversed time. To accommodate the energy-change we need to rewrite the basic equations of motion to take into account the cost of g-waves, and since the rewritten equations need to be time-asymmetrical and SR's are perfectly symmetrical, the new equations can't be SR's. According to Einstein, if g-waves exist, then thermal systems will constantly lose energy, and there will be an anomalous redshift that means that our whole system of physics needs rebuilding from scratch. In the late 1950s/early 1960s, the Harvard gravity-shift test accidentally found the "impossible" thermal redshift effect in their Mossbauer hardware, and hd to resort to cryogenic cooling to minimise it. Technically, their experiment would seem to be an experimental invalidation of SR physics.
• Einstein's 1916 version of general relativity was shown to be wrong in 1929, because its SR/Schwarzshild equaitons predict that gravitational shifts are not cumulative, and the universe is therefore pseudo-Euclidean. Hubble's 1929 shift result, demonstrating that gravitational shifts were cumulative, invalidated SR/Schwarzschild.
• Einstein's 1916 version of general relativity was also shown to be wrong in 1929, because although Einstein had now switched to a hyperspeherical universe, which made grvaitaitonal redshift cumulative in line with curved--sacetime theory, in order to protect SR-Schwardschild's non-cumulative shifts, Einstein invented Lambda to exactly cancel out long-range effects, and explain why the unioverse was static with no such thing as Hubble shifts. Oops.

... and so on.

It's not a question of whether "relativity" is right or wrong. Einstein's SR-based attempt at a General Theory is DEFINITELY wrong. It's a question of which implementation of relativity theory is right.

And none of the ones currently accepted by the community as "viable" have any chance of working, because they all inherit the same fatal flaw from Einstein's version.

----

Einstein tried his damnedest to avoid that question by by referring to HIS theory of relativity as being THE theory of relativity, logically wiping all alternatives out of existence. When confronted by the problem of his two theories clashing, he again removed the question of compatibility from people's vocabularies by referring to the two theories as being again "THE theory of relativity".

Humans are startlingly dumb (sub-GPT-level dumb) when it comes to falling for linguistic tricks. At one point Einstein acknowledged that the thing that made his special theory of relativity different was NOT the adoption of the principle of relativity, but the adoption of global lightspeed constancy, borrowed from LET. Calling it THE theory was tactical.

Similarly, when Einstein didn't want people to ask which principle of lightspeed constancy to use, local or global (because "local-only" gave the competing Hertz system rather than Lorentz), he succeeded not using math or logic of geometry, but by defining words to mean what he wanted them to mean. Again, by referring to HIS principle of lightpseed constancy as THE principle of lightspeed constancy, he eliminated the linguistic possibility of the alternative Hertzian option.

This seems to have been a favourite trick of Einstein's that really worked well at frying people's brains. So he used it again and again. His principle of the equivalence of inertia and gravity was "The Principle of Equivalence" (PoE). But the PoE broke special relativity. SR was "inertial physics in the absence of gravitational physics", and according to the PoE, that was illegal. We were NOT ALLOWED to separate inertia form gravitaiton, because they were different aspects of the same basic property.

So Einstein's response was to invent a new principle, that curved

spacetime physics MUST always reduce to SR physics, and to call THAT "THE Principle of Equivalence"

It's a classic fairground "Bunker Booth" bait-and-switch techique. He introduces one principle, which is great and fundamental, and names it, but it breaks SR ... so he invents a second principle that says that SR is compulsory, gives it the same name, and tells people who have agreed to #1, that they have accepted #2.

Honestly, my first reaction is to be insulted and ask how stupid Einstein really thought we all were to fall for this stuff, but unfortunately I know the answer: "stupid enough". Because when you look around at the mainstream relativity community, THEY ALL GOT SUCKERED BY IT.

Which I guess demonstrates that it's possible to have the equivalent of a 140 IQ in math, and yet still be a drooling idiot when it comes to identifying when a fellow human being is trying to con you.

Maybe that's why the theoretical physics folk react so strongly to "fringe physics" people: they sense deep down that they are gullible and vulnerable, so any suggestion that someone might be trying to con them triggers a strong kneejerk response, proactively, for self-defence. Like the MAGA crowd and their conspiracy theories. The MAGA folk are scared of being taken advantage of by smarter people, while the physics folk are scared of being fooled into buying into some crackpot theory that would destroy their reputations and careers -- so preemptively, anyone suggesting alternative theories must be shunned and not listened to, and cast out of polite society for being a risk to the general population.

V. G. Rousseau : " BTW, you haven't presented a single proof of your anti-relativist religion! "

Oh dear God. What a fool.

I'M A FUCKING RELATIVITY RESEARCHER, YOU MORON.

I am probably more of a relativist than anyone else you will ever meet in your entire lifetime. My views diverge from the GR community's in that I study the consequences of the General Principle of Relativity being treated as exact and correct, whereas (post-1960) the mainstream necessarily treat it as merely a useful but inexact and disposable heuristic guideline, since it conflicts with SR.

I have not just produced more results in relativity theory over the last thirty years than any mainstream relativity researcher: I have perhaps produced more fundamental results than all of them combined.

So I am arguably the only person on the planet that appears to actually be doing "purist" general relativity. And your insult of choice was to characterise me as "anti-relativity". Jeez. You can't even insult someone competently without getting your facts badly wrong.

Now think about what that says about your ability to fact-check, and your lack of reliability when it comes to data analysis. Your ability to read a situation. You ability to read what people are actually writing and understand it. Your ability to function as a credible source of scientific information.

If I know that your understanding of my own position on relativity is hopelessly, hopelessly wrong, then why on Earth would I trust anything else that you tell me about anybody else's work? You just blew any remaining credibility you might have had. Remember that point I just made about mainstream relativity people bullshitting and making stuff up? YOU JUST DID IT!

Seriously, if you want to claim to have a meaningful scientific opinion on something, then first do the required reading. Put in the work. If you're not prepared to put in the time and effort to understand something, then don't pretend to know what you're doing.

If you don't have time to actually read a long post before replying to it, don't "skim", type something and hit "ADD" ... consider just not replying. Practice impulse control. Replying to everything is not compulsory. Try to show some ****ing professional discipline and self-restraint. It'll save you embarrassment in the long run.

V. G.

I tell you to read my rebuttal papers in my ResearchGate profile and produce the rebuttal of the rebuttals and if you are successful I will stop opposing the relativity.

Einstein was a fraud and will remain a fraud. He has deceived the humanity for one hundred twenty years and helped Darwin to spread the atheism.

Eric Baird

This nonsense person cannot understand what you are writing.

Dear Eric Baird ,

I would not waste time with a psychopath losing his credibility by just insulting people, dishonoring the institution he is part of..

By the way there is this interesting paper

Preprint A Contemporary Restatement of Dingle's Challenge to Special Relativity

V. G.

The anti-relativists are fleeing from your nonsenseness, using bad language & arguments and psychopathic behaviour. This is the moral of the story.

Eric Baird

Please, send me a profile picture and I will create your profile of my website, just like I did for Mohammad Shafiq Khan:

https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-MohammadShafikKhan.php

Or perhaps you are going to flee like a coward? Oh yes, that's what all anti-relativists do...

Eric Baird , Federico Comparsi ,

the topic I wanted to highlight is described here

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/87/4/296/1039916/Reconciliation-of-the-Rosen-and-Laue-theories-of

TEXT IN

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.05438

Crenshaw in the attempt to support the validity of Rosen's viewpoint, does not realize that he had pointed out a big problem of SR.

Federico Comparsi

Beware, Stefano Quattrini doesn't understand what an effective theory is.

All members of ResearchGate

Moral of the story remains the same which I have mentioned in my previous comments.

All member of ResearchGate

It is now clear that anti-relativists cowardly flee when proven wrong. For example:

- We can see in this thread that Stefano Quattrini cowardly blocked me after I proved him wrong.

- Mohammad Shafik Khan involves an authority that he doesn't have and invokes Islam in order to "prove" that Einstein is supposedly wrong. Find his biography here: https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-MohammadShafikKhan.php

V. G. Rousseau " Or perhaps you are going to flee like a coward? Oh yes, that's what all anti-relativists do ... "

VG, I've just told you, quite strongly, in capital letters, with blank lines above and below, and an f-word flourish to make it quite clear (and hopefully memorable) ... that I'm a hardcore relativist and logician. More so than the mainstream people.

My research is on the logical consequences of the General Principle of Relativity. Geometricalising the GPoR requires the Principle of Equivalence of inertia and gravitation (PoE), and peer review accepted as long ago as the 1960 crisis, that it is logically impossible to construct an internally consistent theory that includes both the PoE and SR physics.

Schild (1960), American Journal of Physics

Article Equivalence Principle and RedShift Measurements

" ... special relativity and the equivalence principle do not form a consistent theoretical system. "

" If ad hoc assumptions are ruled out, the equivalence principle leads in a natural manner to curved spacetime. This is inconsistent with special relativity, which deals with flat Minkowski spacetime, and with Newtonian gravitation, which is itself inconsistent with special relativity. Thus, in the sense of mathematical logic, it is meaningless (or uninteresting) to ask for consequences of a self-contradictory theoretical system, consisting of the equivalence principle, special relativity, and Newtonian gravitation. "

" ... Our problem is therefore this: Is special relativity valid, but general relativity invalid ... Or is general relativity valid? "

So if you know the history of the subject (or if you understand the geometry!), you'll already know, without me having to tell you, that according to peer review, the community realised in 1960 that Einstein's general theory, as Einstein had defined it., is wrong. We have to either downgrade the GPoR/PoE, or downgrade the SR relationships. And since all of these things are principles that can't be "bent", at least something on the list has to be wrong.

Modern GR folks choose to stick with special relativity, and downgrade the PoE/GPoR where there's a conflict. They will say things like, "We know that the PoE is only an approximation because the fields observed in the accelerated observer's frame can be distinguished from "real" fields, because the region is still intrinsically flat, and the distortions apparent to the accelerated observer can be made to disappear by a suitable choice of coordinate system".

To take that position is, essentially, to say that the GPoR/PoE is wrong, and merely gives a useful approximate heuristic indication of the actual physics.

Einstein disagreed. According to Einstein (1919), the "scientific strength" of the general theory was that it was principle-based, and was either right or wrong. Its output was deterministic, and could not be fiddled or fudged. It was either exactly right, or, if anything about it turned out not not be exactly right, that would mean that the theory was wrong somewhere, and we'd have to tear it up and start again.

This was the stance that impressed Karl Popper, and led Popper to present general relativity as being the perfect example of a true scientific theory, in that it encouraged falsification. The longer it went without being falsified, the more likely it was to be fundamental truth. Unfortunately, the fact that its internal architecture turned out to be impossible meant that GR (as Einstein understood it in 1919) was falsified.

So as I pointed out before, it is impossible as a thinking scientist to treat Einstein's two theories as a single monolithic block, because they don't fit.

• If special relativity is correct, then we can model matter-physics exactly in the absence of gravitational curvature, an accelerated mass cannot distort spacetime, accleeration effects are asymmetrical and absolute, the PoE is an over-simplification, and acclerational gee-forces than can;t be blamed on the relative acceleration of the background styars, we lose Mach's prionciple, and we lose general relativity and the prionciple that all motion is purely relative.
• If the GPoR is correct, then a forcibly-accelerated mass is required to warp spacetime in such a way that it tugs in nearby matter and deflects nearby light, which means that the SR relationships aren't correct for accelerated bodies. But since we can prove that they MUST be correct for accelerated bodies if they are correct for simple motion, we know that in a GPoR context that the equations of motion are not those of SR. In a properly-designed general theory, local lightspeed constancy is regulated for every observer-mass throughout space gravitomagnetically, and we have no need for special relativity and a second incompatible mechanism for c-constancy.

Logic requires that at least one of Einstein's two classical relativity theories is incorrect. Both being right is not an option. If we choose to downgrade the GPoR, then we rescue SR and have at least one of Einstein's two theories still exact. If we say that the GPoR/PoE is exact, then we need a new general theory, and both of Einstein's theories of relativity are wrong.

So what the community did, back in 1960, was they chose the path of least disruption, and like a gambler, doubled down on SR being correct "without the shadow of a doubt". It was purely social-pragmatic, they didn't want to be stuck for decades without a theory to teach.

Since I'm not a textbook vendor, haven't publicly committed myself to the older theories, and am not trying to make money off this, I'm not affected by disruption, and have the luxury of being able to assess the situation more objectively, to try to find which system makes most sense.

On the grounds of abstract logical-geometrical efficiency, I side with the GPoR/PoE, and against SR.

Our initial "proofs" of special relativity depended on the principle of global lightspeed constancy for every inertial observer, which we now appreciate is not a law of physics at all. SR is relativistic physics in flat spacetime, but under the GPoR/PoE, there's no such thing as flat-spacetime inertial physics. there's inertial physics against a flat background, but the physics itself is the curvature. Once we've lost global c, the local relativistic system for inertial physics is Hertzian not Lorentzian

The only way we can have a working general theory is then if it doesn't contain the SR component, and if we switch out the Minkowski metric for a relativistic acoustic metric, and turn Wheeler's "absolute" event horizons into observer-dependent, "projective" relative horizons.

As a bonus, the "acoustic metric" approach, with full gravitomagnetic dragging, turns out to also make the new version of GR compatible with QM, with Hubble cosmology (which also has relative, "projective" horizons), with relativistic gravitation, with classical field theory, and with almost everything else that never worked properly in the Einstein system.

At this point, you'll realise that it's facile to be "for" or "against" "the theory of relativity". There are at least four or five different theories of relativity, and they disagree with each other. Hopefully only one can be correct, and it can't be Einstein's 1916 system. If we want something as grandiose as Einstein's general theory, then we can do it, but it won't have the SR "legacy component", and the result won't be Einstein's. Instead we get yet another theory of relaitvity, that's not on the current lists.

V. G. Rousseau " Or perhaps you are going to flee like a coward? Oh yes, that's what all anti-relativists do ... "

I keep trying to treat you like an adult, and you keep responding like a spoiled child with the emotional maturity of a thirteenyearold. What's with these repeated playground-level attempts at emotional button-pushing?

I understand that the world of physics includes a disproportionately high number of people who are neurodivergent (some of my best friends ... etc.). I'm trying to assume that you have some skills as a theorist that you are not making immediately apparent, and that you merely suffer from an inability to deal socially with other people, like an adult. I'm trying to meet you half-way.

Ask yourself: Why are you actually here? Is it to discuss physics theory with other thinking humans and develops your ability to see different perspectives and therefore become a better and more rounded theorist?

Or do you regard the people here as nutcases, and you're here to mock, deride and throw rocks, and get your kicks out of upsetting and distressing them, like a kid that visits the local zoo to throw coke can at the bears?

What sort of person are you currently, and what sort of person would you like to be?

All participants of the discussion

The open challenge to the theories of relativity is standing since 2012 and will remain standing untill and unless a rebuttal is produced and published in a peer-reviewed journal because the open challenge is based in papers published in a peer-reviewed journals.

The nonsense people like V. G. Rousseau can do nothing but make drum beating of the drums which are torn on both sides.

Eric Baird

Do you really thing that people read all your... well, let's call it "block of whatever it is" every single time you copy/paste it?

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-MohammadShafikKhan.php

All members of ResearchGate

Moral of the story of this discussion has been given in my previous comments. However have the read of following passage.

Kindly send this information to every office bearer of Nobel prize for physics and Physiology & medicine so that they cannot say afterwards that they did not know about this. Once Nobel prize is deservingly given to the discovery of aether that will be the end of Big Bang Theory the foundation of atheistic main-stream physics. Acceptance of discovery of aether, proved without any doubt whatsoever, will be beginning of theistic physics. I don't care whether they give me the Nobel prize or not but they should accept the truth for denying the truth knowingly they have to kill their conscience for which they will be answerable before God. Their conscience will curse the nominators and selectors of Nobel prize for physics for not giving the prize to the discoverer of the aether throughout their life though ultimately the discovery of aether will have to be awarded the Nobel prize. Let the Nobel prize organisation be truthful and if this will not awaken the conscience of the nominators and selectors then nothing can. I do realise the problem of Nobel prize organisations because all the nominators will have to be from the main-stream physics who do not want to know anything about what dissident physicists say or write. I being the dissident physicist so all the nominators would not like to include me in the list. For this hurdle I have the rational solution which is that those nominators be selected who accept my 'open challenge' and prove me wrong. It is worthwhile to mention here that I have put forward an open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics i.e. main-stream physics in 2012 which is standing till today.

Following is the link to my publications including my open challenge

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Khan-516/research

(Please also share this link with every university and science college of the world including research institutions of the world like NASA, ESA, CERN, FERMILAB etc.)

After the discovery of the existence of aether, the electric dipoles & fifth constituent of universe, in the year 2011 and putting forward the open challenge in 2012 to the adopted paradigm of physics I thought the prestigious Nobel prize Organisation will realise the importance of my discovery some day. But I waited for thirteen years but nothing happened though the open challenge continues to be standing till date. I did approach my government, wherein pathetic conditions prevail so far as education and science & technology are concerned, and there also nothing happened. Now I have decided to claim the Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine as a matter of right.

I want that all the professionals should recommend me for award of Nobel prizes in physics and Physiology & medicine for following discoveries and scientific research.

1. Discovery of aether, the electric dipoles as fifth constituent of the universe, without any doubt whatsoever in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled "Michelson-Morley Experiment; A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment' and substantiated by my several published papers.

2. Consequent upon discovery of aether, the electric dipoles, light/radiation has been shown to be the electromagnetic wave motion propagating in the electric dipoles of aether. Also consequent upon the discovery of aether all the four forces of nature are reduced to one force i. e. electromagnetic force in the scientific research paper titled 'Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things and Living Things'.

3. The Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Minkowski geometry, Space-time Concept, Dark Matter and Dark Energy including the famous formula E=mc^2 are shown to be absolutely baseless in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled 'Experimental and Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' This paper also substantiates the existence of aether theoretically and experimentally.

4. A correct and flawless theory of cosmology has been proposed and published in the peer-reviewed journal titled 'Energy Theory of Matter and Cosmology'

5. A different paradigm of biological sciences has been proposed and published in the paper titled 'Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life' of which the revised version is under process wherein a metaphysical substance has been introduced, given the name of 'energy', which explains the consciousness, instincts, gowth, self-repair, cell function but above all biological laws This is the only alternative to explain the above-mentioned phenomena of life in all animal species including humans by reviving vitalism and called Revitalism. The laws of nature having been reduced to one electromagnetic force can in no case explain all phenomena of life.

The above-mentioned papers and other papers are available on journal site of Indian Journal of Science and Technology, General Science Journal, Natural Philosophers Database , ResearchGate, SlideShare, viXra, Elixir Online Publishing journal, Academia.edu etc in my profile.

On the basis of above-mentioned work I feel it is my right to claim the Nobel prizes as the adopted paradigm of physics is under open challenge which is standing since 2012 and it has been defended against several attempts of trying to disprove me.

With Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan (IFS)

M.Sc (physics) M.Sc (forestry)

Ex. Director, Writer, Scientist, Philosopher and above all a Philanthropist.

Note:- This may also be sent to all those who are concerned with nomination and selection of Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine. Please find out their emails or pages on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, twitter, LinkedIn etc. and send them this post.

V. G.

Your website will help me to be famous because people will be curious to know what I say and would look for my perspective. You are simply a senseless fellow who does not realize the outcome of your actions.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

> "Your website will help me to be famous"

Perfect. You should share the link to my website then, to help Google reference it better, which will help you even more.

Here is the link to the main page: https://bluemoonshine.fun

V.G.

Your question is replied as the moral of the story in my previous comments.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists-MohammadShafikKhan.php

V. G.

Please go on making more of such web sites, as it will help me a lot. Have a look with whom you are dealing with. Make a website of following passage.

Kindly send this information to every office bearer of Nobel prize for physics and Physiology & medicine so that they cannot say afterwards that they did not know about this. Once Nobel prize is deservingly given to the discovery of aether that will be the end of Big Bang Theory the foundation of atheistic main-stream physics. Acceptance of discovery of aether, proved without any doubt whatsoever, will be beginning of theistic physics. I don't care whether they give me the Nobel prize or not but they should accept the truth for denying the truth knowingly they have to kill their conscience for which they will be answerable before God. Their conscience will curse the nominators and selectors of Nobel prize for physics for not giving the prize to the discoverer of the aether throughout their life though ultimately the discovery of aether will have to be awarded the Nobel prize. Let the Nobel prize organisation be truthful and if this will not awaken the conscience of the nominators and selectors then nothing can. I do realise the problem of Nobel prize organisations because all the nominators will have to be from the main-stream physics who do not want to know anything about what dissident physicists say or write. I being the dissident physicist so all the nominators would not like to include me in the list. For this hurdle I have the rational solution which is that those nominators be selected who accept my 'open challenge' and prove me wrong. It is worthwhile to mention here that I have put forward an open challenge to the adopted paradigm of physics i.e. main-stream physics in 2012 which is standing till today.

Following is the link to my publications including my open challenge

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mohammad-Khan-516/research

(Please also share this link with every university and science college of the world including research institutions of the world like NASA, ESA, CERN, FERMILAB etc.)

After the discovery of the existence of aether, the electric dipoles & fifth constituent of universe, in the year 2011 and putting forward the open challenge in 2012 to the adopted paradigm of physics I thought the prestigious Nobel prize Organisation will realise the importance of my discovery some day. But I waited for thirteen years but nothing happened though the open challenge continues to be standing till date. I did approach my government, wherein pathetic conditions prevail so far as education and science & technology are concerned, and there also nothing happened. Now I have decided to claim the Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine as a matter of right.

I want that all the professionals should recommend me for award of Nobel prizes in physics and Physiology & medicine for following discoveries and scientific research.

1. Discovery of aether, the electric dipoles as fifth constituent of the universe, without any doubt whatsoever in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled "Michelson-Morley Experiment; A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment' and substantiated by my several published papers.

2. Consequent upon discovery of aether, the electric dipoles, light/radiation has been shown to be the electromagnetic wave motion propagating in the electric dipoles of aether. Also consequent upon the discovery of aether all the four forces of nature are reduced to one force i. e. electromagnetic force in the scientific research paper titled 'Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living Things and Living Things'.

3. The Special Theory of Relativity, General Theory of Relativity, Minkowski geometry, Space-time Concept, Dark Matter and Dark Energy including the famous formula E=mc^2 are shown to be absolutely baseless in the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled 'Experimental and Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' This paper also substantiates the existence of aether theoretically and experimentally.

4. A correct and flawless theory of cosmology has been proposed and published in the peer-reviewed journal titled 'Energy Theory of Matter and Cosmology'

5. A different paradigm of biological sciences has been proposed and published in the paper titled 'Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life' of which the revised version is under process wherein a metaphysical substance has been introduced, given the name of 'energy', which explains the consciousness, instincts, gowth, self-repair, cell function but above all biological laws This is the only alternative to explain the above-mentioned phenomena of life in all animal species including humans by reviving vitalism and called Revitalism. The laws of nature having been reduced to one electromagnetic force can in no case explain all phenomena of life.

The above-mentioned papers and other papers are available on journal site of Indian Journal of Science and Technology, General Science Journal, Natural Philosophers Database , ResearchGate, SlideShare, viXra, Elixir Online Publishing journal, Academia.edu etc in my profile.

On the basis of above-mentioned work I feel it is my right to claim the Nobel prizes as the adopted paradigm of physics is under open challenge which is standing since 2012 and it has been defended against several attempts of trying to disprove me.

With Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan (IFS)

M.Sc (physics) M.Sc (forestry)

Ex. Director, Writer, Scientist, Philosopher and above all a Philanthropist.

Note:- This may also be sent to all those who are concerned with nomination and selection of Nobel prizes for physics and Physiology & medicine. Please find out their emails or pages on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, twitter, LinkedIn etc. and send them this post.

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

Alright, here is a list of other crackpots with whom you may get along: https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php

Share it as much as you can!

My Odyssey from Magnets to Gravity

Blake Taylor

If you insist, I can add you and your book to this page: https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php

Just send me a profile picture.

Eric Baird ,

I agree with you

My Odyssey with Graphs; Just noticed their absence on first post.

V. G. Rousseau : " Do you really thing that people read all your... well, let's call it "block of whatever it is" every single time you copy/paste it? "

Except that ... that's not what I do. That's another piece of bullshit from you, and/or another lie. Are you trying to achieve an RG record?

I try to take RG seriously as a scientific forum. If you bothered to check, you'd find that every long reply I make is written from scratch, they are all different and use different arguments and/or selections of arguments. So:

• You're again publicly accusing your opponents of doing things that they don't do.
• You may find it difficult to imagine someone putting that much effort into writing posts on RG ... perhaps because you're lazy, and can't imagine doing that yourself, So to you, it might seem like a safe bet to accuse them of cutting-and pasting answers. Because you automatically assume that everyone else is like you. But once again again, you are misreading the situation, and getting facts wrong as a result.
• If you weren't so lazy, and actually bothered to read the replies sent to you before responding to them, you'd have realised that your accusation is wrong.
• But perhaps you don't care too much about the possibility that you're misrepresenting other people's actions to win arguments ... since you can't be arsed to actually check your facts, even when they affect other people's reputations. Even when fact-checking would be as simple as reading posts before you reply to them.

You lack basic scientific etiquette. You lack basic scientific discipline. You lack basic scientific respect for facts, and basic social respect for other people. You have a record of making claims and characterisations that turn out to be provably untrue, and then refusing to retract or acknowledge your failures.

Your fit the behavioural profile of a crackpot. You are merely acting like a pro-establishment crackpot rather than an anti-establishment crackpot.

V. G. Rousseau : " tell him how ChatGPT described him "

No. Your prompt didn't specify Stefano, so the result is not "how ChatGPT described him". I'm not going to spam insults that you had AI make up for you, on RG. You don't respect factual accuracy. If you had an experimental paper, then on current experience, I would not be inclined to trust your data.

All you are currently doing is progressively destroying your own online reputation

Stefano has probably decided (quite rationally) that your presence here is damaging the RG experience for him so much that he'd prefer not to be aware of your existence. If the main thing you have to contribute here is personal insults, he's probably making the right call.

Eric Baird

> "I'm not going to spam insults that you had AI make up for you"

It's ChatGPT's own words, and these are not insults, it is a DIAGNOSTIC!

Keep fleeing, that's what all anti-relativists do!

Many of us here have experience with LLMs and could easily take your example and change the prompt to refer to someone who behaves like you do, here, and invite ChatGPT to use colourful language to describe THAT sort of person. But we haven't, because we don't want to stoop to your level.

You are creating a reputation for yourself as a toxic individual.

V. G.

Question is resolved with my moral of the story as in my previous comments.