Thank you for the invitation. I do not know, but, many times, monopolization coincides with artificial proofs, especially, when there are huge interests.

Regards

PS. The clarifications below the question are noticeably enlightening.

Thank you for the invitation. I do not know, but, many times, monopolization coincides with artificial proofs, especially, when there are huge interests.

Regards

PS. The clarifications below the question are noticeably enlightening.

Dear Demetris, it is not 50 years but more than 100 years... You can add the mathematical interpretation of the Lorentz Transformations, resulting in the Special Relativity theory, which is non-physical, the monotheistic General theory of relativity, which is non-physical, the monotheistic theory of Big Bang, embraced by the (scientifically leading) monotheistic community, the cosmic redshift interpretation which is deduced from it, the cosmic background radiation, and so on.

All these theories are self-deduced and inter-deduced. All observations are forced to fit, and contrary observations are neglected and dismissed.

Halton Arp's lifetime work has been dismissed because it didn't fit the standard theory.

So, it is much worse than you think. National lobby groups, computer companies, detection device production companies, they all want to get tax money and "prove Einstein right", because it's all about big money, not science...

Dear Demetris Christopoulos

In this situation, it seems that the end justifies the means, when in essence, the MEDIA (method, design, validated instruments, various resources) would have to lead to FIN, which in scientific research would be "Hypothesis Verification", generating original knowledge.

The FIN would be the results to some extent manipulated or not fully validated, disseminating in a superficial form results that JUSTIFY the great financial resources destined to infrastructure, instrumental equipment and work teams of hundreds of scientists, in the great projects already mentioned.

I believe that the journalistic disclosure of certain results of finished works but not published in "Scientific Journals with Strict Editorial Board", has a great bias. Therefore, it is necessary that the entry to the publication is not direct without an expert review (modulated by agreements and financial incentives with the Journals that have the monopoly as official organ of diffusion), but by a filter of quality conferred by the capacity and Scientific experience of reviewers (peers) to qualify impartially the scientific merits of such publications.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimado Demetris Christopoulos

En esta situación, parece ser que el fin justifica los medios, cuando en esencia, los MEDIOS (método, diseño, instrumentos validados, recursos varios) tendrían que llevar al FIN, que en investigación científica sería la Verificación de Hipótesis, generando conocimientos originales.

El FIN serían los resultados hasta cierto punto manipulados o no totalmente validados, diseminando en forma superficial resultados que JUSTIFICAN los grandes recursos financieros destinados a infraestructura, equipamiento instrumental y equipos de trabajo de cientos de científicos, en los grandes proyectos ya mencionados.

Creo que la divulgación periodística de ciertos resultados de trabajos terminados pero no publicados en "Revistas Científicas con Consejo Editorial Estricto", tiene un gran sesgo. Por tanto, es necesario que la entrada a la publicación, no sea directa sin revisión experta (modulada por convenios e incentivos financieros con las revistas que tienen el monopolio como órgano oficial de difusión), sino por un filtro de calidad conferida por la capacidad y experiencia científica de los revisores (pares) para calificar con imparcialidad, los méritos científicos de esas publicaciones.

Saludos

José Luis

The large project is still expected to present the methods and uncertainties. Some programs like LIGO and CERN apply a standard of 5 sigmas with data and methods made available to public. There is always a chance of being wrong, but much is done to minimize it. Something new and different must survive years in public, and answer criticisms. The large group has become popular because of enormous amount of work and many details. Publishers prefer a group as the less risk in choosing among submissions. 

I agree with all the above answers.

Regards

SM Najim

Dear Demetris Christopoulos,

This is indeed very sad that some "Big Projects" are results oriented being so dependent on external funding.

On the other hand, such big projects are beautiful examples of collaboration in science.

I am quite optimistic, however. Your criticism and the response you receive make me believe in self-correcting nature of science.

I do admire your striving for truth in science.

Best regards,

Andrzej Okniński

Dear Martin, do you really believe in "scientific falsification" nowadays?

How would the Michelson-Morley null result interpretation possibly be falsified scientifically? A null result is not even a valid scientific experiment, except if the entire physical context is perfectly known. If one tests the angular momentum of a sphere, a null result is perfectly defined and means that the sphere is not spinning. Such a perfect knowledge of the physical context was not known in the case of Michelson-Morley's experiment. Several options were overlooked.

Hence, how could the mainstream theories even subsist by the grace of Michelson-Morley's null result? Isn't that against the most basic scientific methods?

How would one possibly falsify the purely mathematical interpretation which is special relativity, when the tools we dispose of for measuring time are only atomic clocks? How would this guarantee that *any* mechanical clock would show the same delay and by which experiment would one perform this?

How would one possibly falsify the purely mathematical interpretation that no medium exists for the transmission of E-M waves, while *all* the other physics, without exception, which are well-known and fully tested, require it?

How one would possibly falsify general relativity, which in fact creates a mathematical metric containing one energetic and one massive unit, allegedly standing for the “universe”?

How one would possibly falsify “general relativity”, which in fact is now become a set of numerous metrics at will, linearized “metrics” at will, with free parameters at will, like the post-(post) Newton “metrics”?

How would one possibly falsify the measured bending of light, since the measurement errors from the refraction by the solar plasma are “corrected” by using the theoretical bending as a reference?

How would one possibly falsify the cosmic redshift, if one starts from the dogma of a Big Bang, and since all the theories are indirect deductions from each-other, starting with poorly verified assumptions?

How one could possibly falsify the mainstream theories in gravity and cosmology, since nowadays all journals are systematically refusing any option that tries to contradict anything of it?

How one could possibly falsify the mainstream theories whatsoever, since nowadays high tech equipment is required, necessitating billions of dollars to been build, and of which the money flows are controlled by the same people?

In reality, the request of “falsification” is just another lie, allowing to realize new biased experiments and to “prove” mainstream theories right.

New, validating theories should start from scratch, be *directly* verifiable, and based upon all the pre-1905 physics and scientific methods which were well verified.

Dear Martin,

Interesting questions indeed. Let's start with “scientific method”. You can read about that on Research Gate by searching the author Manuel Morales.

Copernicus, Galilei, Kepler, Newton, observed many events and distilled simple equations, which were tested at many different occasions. So did (among many others) Coulomb, Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell.

All these theories were validated by experiment, whereby each part of the physical setup was known and described (“scientific verification”). It was not a chain of deductions, all starting from one theory that was tested partially, but instead, before 1905, every part of the set of theories was *directly* selected and verified.

However, in 1905, the “scientific method” radically changed by accepting a purely mathematical theory, inspired from the aether question, and undoubtedly from Michelson & Morley's experiment with a null result. That interpretation is dismissing the need for several essential elements of former science, like the need of a medium in order to propagate waves, the need of a physical reason to get mass increase with velocity, time dilatation and length contraction.

As I told earlier, a valid scientific “null result” is a non-event of an experimental setup of which the physical context is perfectly known (scientifically verified).

A “null result” is not allowed to help fabricating a theory, based upon an experimental setup of which the physical context is *not* perfectly known (scientifically unverified).

The many existing mainstream gravity theories are patched upon that interpretation though, and gravity and cosmology are moreover inspired by the monotheistic belief (GRT, Big Bang).

“Scientific falsification” allows to contradict a scientifically well verified theory, by only one single contradictory experiment.

However, GRT is not a scientifically well verified theory, since mainstream *invented* “dark matter” in order to maintain the theorized gravitational bending invariant.

Shapiro *invented* the alleged correspondence of the time delay of light nearby stars with GRT, by using GRT's bending as a reference and to take the effect by the star's plasma as a valid correction.

Any gravity theory, all deduced indirectly from GRT, is similarly not scientifically well verified, since the *intrinsic* and universal properties of space and time are not proven at all.

Nowadays, every falsification is considered either as a reason for a new indirect theory, or is simply denied, especially if it concerns stellar configurations or alleged black holes, far away and not verifiable anyway by alternative methods.

Quasars with high redshift are connected to galaxies with a low redshift (Halton Arp), but that is denied in order to maintain the cosmic expansion theory.

Neutrino's are an *invention* in order to maintain the equivalence between mass and energy in beta decay. The Cowan and Reines Neutrino Experiment is a circular reasoning and didn't *directly* detect neutrino's, like neither experiment truly did, hence neutrinos are another *indirect* theory, based upon the former, not fully tested theories.

So-called binary orbit decay calculus according to GRT are in fact *curve fits* by using the fitting parameters in Post(Post)Newton deductions.

The list is not complete, and includes what I wrote in earlier posts.

I am convinced that I have given you quite a lot answers to your questions.

All the best.

Thierry De Mees

Dear Martin,

We are not alienating from the original question, since the latter is caused by the ill theories.

I will answer your last question first. CERN also planned to find the Higgs boson. At a certain moment, they decided to stop looking for it within a deadline of a few months. The scientific community was furious. Amazingly, a few weeks later they found a particle "in the range" of what could be interpreted as the Higgs boson, and the scientific community *decided* it was the Higgs boson they found.

However, spites that “discovery”, there is no proof whatsoever that the Higgs boson is providing mass to other particles. They just found some massive particle!

Good that you ask for “the difference between a mathematical and a physical theory”, since not understanding that explains the rest of your last post. I'll explain it below with an example.

SRT allows that any observer will define another reference frame as having time dilatation, hence, the causality between events by comparing both reference frames is inexistent, since every observer can pretend, even mutually, that the time is going slower at some other frames.

This is physically impossible. Hence, the SRT interpretation of the Lorentz Transformations is non-physical, and only mathematical.

As I wrote in earlier posts, only a clock retardation of atomic clocks could be experimentally found, no intrinsic time delay of any clock or matter itself, no mass increase and no length contraction. So, SRT is far from proven, and the little that has been measured can perfectly be explained by other ways.

Indeed, the alleged covariance of Lorentz equations on Maxwell's equations is another unfounded mathematical requirement that is linked with SRT.

In reality, Maxwell's equations should be used with real physical elements, like electrons and/or protons. By doing that between two reference frames, of which one is moving, one will find different Lorentz Transformations, depending from which reference frame is really moving w.r.t. a static electric field.

The last words are essential, and inexistent with the SRT approach.

“How is Newton's interpretation of the falling apple different from the Michelson-Morley interpretation? I also think that most physicists would agree that Michelson-Morley only proved electromagnetic aether to be wrong.”

It cannot be more absurd than saying so. You clearly didn't read or understand what I wrote about null experiments, i.e. that null results can only been validated when the entire physical context is understood. That is clearly not the case with the “electromagnetic aether” whether it exists or not.

Indeed, a physical context has its limits. One will not try to prove gravitational effects by using a context of mechanics only. However, a physical context can be considered complete and fully verified, even if it is not “The Unified Theory of Everything”.

" 'Scientific falsification' allows to contradict a scientifically well verified theory, by only one single contradictory experiment." is *not* inconsistent, since a well verified theory is not always *fully* verified. However, an overthrown theory is another thing. Kerr didn't need to falsify Einstein's GRT in order to invent his.

“How exactly do you prove *directly* the existence of a particle?” Well, if I get an electric shock, I think there is a good reason to believe there is something there. At least that is not a deduction from a deduction from a deduction from a unproven theory.

“Especially, I am wondering if you have a consistent alternative to GR which is in agreement with all the available data.”

I am glad you ask. Yes, O. Heaviside's gravitomagnetism, further developed by O. Jefimenko, indeed fulfills all requirements and experiments by using pre-1905 physics. It complies with disc galaxy formation and the stars' velocities, the asteroid belt data, Mercury's perihelion advance, the light bending, clock retardation, and it predicts many issues.

You can find more at Amazon.com about O. Jefimenko, and annexed.

Finally, okay, I agree that Manuel Morales can a bit extreme in his philosophical developments, but I don't know the context of your discussions...

http://www.gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf

I conclude we agree on some points, finally.

"What does your theory predict differently from GR which can be tested experimentally to distinguish between the two?"

It is not "my" theory. Just read the summaries in my book, and look for yourself. There is enough choice available.

CMB is an interpretation, based upon a deduction from a deduction from a non proven theory. Read what Pierre-Marie Robitaille has to say about it.

Dear Martin,

You in fact admitted that SRT is no physical theory and that the Higgs hypothesis is a deduction, not fully proven by CERN.

By the way, your "proof" of applying the Lorentz transformations on Maxwell's equations is invalid, since the very Maxwell's equations (as published in textbooks) are expressing field situations at one place and time, not on various distances and not causal. So, that case is trivial. It can in no way justify the wrong claim of Lorentz symmetry from SRT.

Oleg Jefimenko developed and solved this issue entirely, but you will need to dig a bit for that..

W.r.t. my book, I wouldn't be able in this thread to give more than a very short summary of some of my findings, which will not satisfy you anyway. If you refuse even to look at the index, and at a short summary at the back of the book or at each chapter, wouldn't it say something about a biased and surly attitude against non-conforming science, without any thorough analysis?

Concerning CMB, the author's answer is: "It is a scientific fact that the so-called monopole signal of the 'CMB' has not been observed by any satellites beyond ~900km of Earth."  It indeed appears that at L2, the required so-called monopole signal is not observed.

Regarding the alleged suicide talks from Morales, if you don't provide the whole discussion line, I cannot take any position. The fact that you required this from me is illogic and inappropriate.

Dear Demetris Christopoulos, part of your question concerns the IMF. Did you read Yanis Varoufakis' excellent book about the economy explained at his daughter?

It explains a lot about the economic cycle giving surprise after surprise. Unfortunately he didn't come with even a beginning of a solution in order to break the vicious circle...

All the best! Thierry

Physics has not been science for a very long time. It has long been a circus freak show, facilitated not by brains and laboratories, but by means of mass-media induced mass hysteria. Such mass-media induced mass-hysteria is what made Einstein; not science. LIGO is a recent example, the Higgs boson another. Here is a very recent encounter with the LIGO director, Prof. David Reitze:

Crothers, S.J., LIGO at the University of Queensland,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0209v1.pdf

Here is a recent encounter with another physics magician: Prof. Manfred Lindner:

Crothers, S.J., Cosmology in the Dreamtime at the University of Sydney,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1612.0167v1.pdf

Martin Spinrath: Why don't you make comments on the scientific content of my citations?  Or will you ignore the facts in the same fashion as cosmologists? Cosmology is not science.

Martin Spinrath,

Clearly you have decided to ignore the scientific and mathematical facts no matter what, in order to travel with the international circus freak show. Your comments have no scientific value and betray an agenda here other than science, and hence are of no consequence.

Dear Martin, since you mention my name, I will answer for my part.

Your emotional aspirations are not expected to take part of this forum. Scientific affirmations must be substantiated, no matter your belief and no matter your wish to have the right to live as a main stream scientist.

If you want this and avoid any possible discussion, get into the cult like a docile priest, write textbooks, but leave scientists alone who want to get progress and who attribute themselves the right to question mainstream science.

As for not sending you or members of your institute emails, your institute is living by the grace of the taxpayer. Hence, it is the duty of the members to help taxpayers in any possible way in order to make true progress in physics.

Martin, wake up! NASA and ESA are sharing their findings with the whole world, including Taiwan. Russians, Europeans, Americans have common missions. You behave like a fallen angel wrt the real objectives of science, and like a fallen province in your talks about research cooperation in Taiwan. 

Martin Spinrath,

You did not put any scientific questions to me at all, only provocative hot air. I provided some papers for reference.  You did not use them to formulate any scientific questions.  Consequently you received no scientific answers to any of your unscientific 'questions'.

Contrary to your view, I can email who I please. Your permission is not required.

And to the already long list must be added the climategate. No wonder that in a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, money rules everything, and financial interests defines what must be found and spread. There is a still more insidious method that is called astroturfing, whose principle is to make belief that an information comes from grassroot people and not from "experts" who are less and less trusted. But let us admit that the phenomenon also happend in the scientific community, where tycoons who have gathered political steam try and impose their favorite theory they are working on. Can we accept as scientifically proven the prediction of the g-factor of the electron and the associated theory, when it is the only precise agreement, and as the same prediction of the other charged leptons fails?

For God's particle, I'm waiting for the measurement of the spin, as it is the only real test. Apparently, the peak that have been observed doesn't behave like predicted by the theory. No extraordinary announcement about that?

The emotional tone of the article about Crothers says it all. There has been a similar sullying campaign against the Bogdanov brothers, because they were already tivi stars. I even personally witnessed a manifestly warped moderation on the newsgroup sci.physics.research, where plain insults were allowed, in blatant violation of the charter. Sorry, but we keep steering clear of this stinky peer review process, and we leave the reader as the sole judge.

Let us play the game of paraphrase, example:

"steering clear of the peer review process"

for

"censored"

Who review the peer review system? The same peers. In sane logic, that is called circular reasoning, or petition of principle. The rationalist movement is known as a nest of zealous bigots who affirm that God doesn't exist (atheism) and that every religion is a set of superstition, in spite of the well developed theology. In which peer reviewed article can we find the rational proof of that?

In which world do we live? I claim the right to be wrong. Nobody can prevent me to say what I believe, even on the ground that it is wrong.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx art. 18 & 19

rationalwiki doesn't respect art. 19 since it is libel.

Prove rationally that God doesn't exist.

Wrong theories are already justified by censorship.

Then, no measure of the spin. As to the uncensored alternative models, you know what I think. In addition, it is implied that no further alternative theory can exist, which is obviously false. Actually, the deviation of the would-be Higgs from the standard model must spark new hypotheses, not quench them. In addition, the confidence level is for the existence of the peak, apples and oranges.

My thoughts are absolutely clear, you have nothing to answer, that's all.

The alternative theories are technicolor, supersymmetry, grand unification etc., that is, theories that have one or more spin 0, elementary or composite particle, that is not constraining. A composite particle may have spin 2, or perhaps it is the graviton, who knows? Some ideas has been disfavoured by data, and others by censorship, apples and oranges.

Asking to prove that God doesn't exist is not clear? Are you making fun on me? You can't, and that's all.

Well, you have closed the discussion by yourself with your personal attack.

Yes, Martin, all this is founded on lie.

Is not paradox of lier enough for You, Martin?

Set theory is the foundation of modern mathematics, Martin, but it has paradoxes such as lier's paradox.