Abdul Malek

This is a very broad and complex topic that cannot be adequately addressed in only one post. However, I will try to give some brief comments on some of the points you raised.

- The use of theology as a ruling-class tool is a claim that has been made by some Marxist thinkers, who argue that religion serves the interests of the dominant class by legitimizing their power and ideology, and by pacifying the oppressed class with false promises of salvation and justice in the afterlife. However, this claim is not universally accepted by all sociologists of religion, who point out that religion can also be a source of resistance, liberation, and social change for the oppressed class, as exemplified by some liberation theology movements in Latin America.

- The Copernican revolution was indeed a major challenge to the geocentric cosmology of theology, but it did not overthrow it completely. Some theologians tried to reconcile the new heliocentric model with their biblical interpretation, while others rejected it as heretical. The conflict between science and religion was not resolved by the Copernican revolution, but rather intensified by it.

- Newton's theory of universal gravitation did not restore the idealist geocentric cosmology, but rather extended the Copernican revolution by providing a mathematical and physical explanation for the motion of celestial bodies. Newton's theory was based on empirical observations and experiments, not on metaphysical assumptions. Newton did have some theological views that influenced his natural philosophy, such as his belief in God as the creator and sustainer of the universe, but he did not impose them on his scientific work.

- Einstein's theories of relativity did not reinforce Newtonian mathematical idealism, but rather challenged it by showing that space and time are not absolute and independent entities, but rather relative and interdependent aspects of a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Einstein's theories were also based on empirical observations and experiments, such as the deflection of light by gravity and the equivalence of mass and energy. Einstein also had some theological views that influenced his scientific work, such as his belief in a cosmic order and harmony that transcends human understanding, but he did not impose them on his scientific work.

- The quantum world is indeed a fundamentally unintuitive new realm of objective reality that challenges the classical causality-based epistemology. However, this does not mean that we have to abandon all rationality and logic in our understanding of nature. Quantum mechanics is a rigorous mathematical theory that has been tested and confirmed by many experiments. It does not contradict general relativity, but rather complements it by describing phenomena at the subatomic level. Quantum mechanics also raises some philosophical questions about the nature of reality, such as the role of observation and measurement, the uncertainty principle, and the entanglement of particles.

These are just some brief comments on some of the issues you raised. I hope they are helpful and informative.

Lyudmil Antonov : Thanks for your comment. But unfortunately, it seems that you did not give enough consideration of the publications and the different epistemological (materialist dialectical) foundation (as opposed to Causality) on which this deliberation is based. Historically and up to the present time, natural science in general and theoretical physics and cosmology in particular are based on the world-view of what Hegel called "the view of understanding" (or metaphysics) as opposed to his "the view of reason" (or dialectics). The views expressed by you are based on the former world-view.

This author spent few decades analyzing the the problems of theoretical physics and cosmology, publishing books, journal articles etc., probing the faults, the scope, the limitations and the promise of the prevailing theories of physics from a materialist dialectical perspective (initiated by Frederick Engels) and found them lacking, with conceptual error and in conflict with objective reality and social/historical practice. This new perspective based on quantum electrodynamics and an extension of dialectics to the microcosm and macrocosm, offers better alternatives to the current ailing theories of physics and cosmology, but is largely unknown yet among the scientific community.

I hope that you would reconsider your expressed opinion specially on Newton's and Einstein's theories and also on quantum mechanics, if you kindly peruse at least the following few articles by this author. Thanks again. Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Article The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and I...

Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

Article Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's M...

I have studied dialectic materialism (we called it diamat for short) from 11 to 25 years old in the school grades through to graduation from university. It was obligatory for everyone regardless if he wanted to specialise in natural sciences or humanities or he didn't want to specialise in anything. We lived under socialism (which is now called totalitarism) and under the name marxism-leninism it was the state dogma, something akin to religion. If you doubted or contradicted Marx or Engels, you had a bleak life and uncertain future, being dubbed as an enemy to the people. As you can surmise, I harbour no sympathy for this philosophy, so you would be right if you call me a prejudiced person.

Studying math, physics, and statistics both in and out of school or university, I came to the conclusion, proven plenty of times, that any theory or statement purporting to be science should be founded on a plethora of hard facts and observations with all kinds of measurements, these quantities should be put in formulas and the formulas proven mathematically. "Math is the language of science" does not ring hollow to me.

Because your question is about cosmology which I consider a branch of physics (some consider it theology and others, a mysticism), and physics is a science, for science texts I have got the useful habit to read only places with math formulas. Pages with non-math text for me express only shaky conjectures, not proven or provable. From this position, please excuse me that I have read only the rare pages with math in your works.

Let's start with the Lorenz transform, as something closer to my interests.

You are questioning the validity of Einstein’s derivation of the Lorentz transformation, which is a mathematical formula that describes how the measurements of space and time change for observers moving at different speeds relative to each other. However, there are many ways to derive the Lorentz transformation using different physical principles and mathematical tools, and Einstein’s derivation is based on his two postulates of special relativity: the relativity principle and the constancy of the speed of light. Some critics (like you) have pointed out that Einstein’s derivation contains some logical flaws, mathematical errors, or hidden assumptions that make it questionable or invalid. For example, one criticism is that Einstein introduced two arbitrary constants ƛ and μ in his equations without any physical justification or explanation. Another criticism is that Einstein assumed that the time coordinate t’ in the moving frame is linearly related to the time coordinate t in the stationary frame, which is not necessarily true. These criticisms suggest that Einstein’s derivation of the Lorentz transformation is not as simple or elegant as it appears, and that it may not be a rigorous proof of his theory of special relativity.

However, this criticism misses the fact that there are some alternative derivations of the Lorentz transformation which are based on different physical principles, such as:

- The locality of interactions, which implies that there is a maximal speed of information transmission that must be invariant.

- The conservation of energy and momentum, which implies that the transformation must preserve the scalar product of four-vectors.

- The principle of least action, which implies that the transformation must leave the action invariant under variations of the coordinates.

Some alternative derivations are also based on different mathematical tools, such as:

- Elementary algebra and hyperbolic functions, which can be used to solve a system of equations relating the coordinates of two frames.

- Linear algebra and group theory, which can be used to find the most general linear transformation that preserves the spacetime interval.

- Differential geometry and tensors, which can be used to express the transformation in a coordinate-free way using covariant and contravariant vectors.

These alternative derivations may have different advantages and disadvantages, such as simplicity, generality, or physical insight. They may also reveal different aspects or consequences of the Lorentz transformation, such as its symmetry properties, its relation to other concepts in relativity, or its experimental verification.

I don't have a strong preference for any particular derivation, but I find the one based on the principle of least action to be interesting and elegant. It shows that the Lorentz transformation is a consequence of a variational principle that governs the dynamics of physical systems. It also connects the Lorentz transformation to other concepts in physics, such as the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, and the Noether's theorem. I think this derivation reveals some of the deeper symmetries and structures of nature.

In another page with math (around page 10) you seem to suggest that Einstein's derivation of Lorentz transformation is unnecessary or misleading, and that one can obtain the same results using Galilean transforms and a simple substitution. However, it does not explain why this is the case, or what implications it has for the theories of relativity.

This text confuses Galilean transforms and Lorentz transforms, which are different ways of relating the coordinates of events in different inertial frames of reference. Galilean transforms are based on the classical Newtonian mechanics, which assume that time and space are absolute and independent, and that there is no limit to the relative speed of two frames. Lorentz transforms are based on the relativistic Einsteinian mechanics, which assume that time and space are relative and interdependent, and that there is a universal constant speed of light that cannot be exceeded by any frame. Galilean transforms are approximations of Lorentz transforms for speeds far less than the speed of light. Lorentz transforms are applicable for any speed taking into account that this speed cannot exceed the speed of light. Galilean transforms are not relevant in the realms of special relativity and quantum mechanics.

Further on, the text confuses Lorentz transform and Minkowski spacetime, which are different ways of describing the geometry of spacetime in special relativity. Lorentz transform is a family of linear transformations that relate the coordinates of events in different inertial frames of reference. Minkowski spacetime is a mathematical model of spacetime that incorporates the postulates of special relativity and has a metric that defines the spacetime interval between any two events. Lorentz transform preserves the spacetime interval and is a symmetry of Minkowski spacetime. The text also misrepresents the concept of existence in Minkowski spacetime, which is not defined by a timelike spacetime interval, but by a nonzero spacetime interval. The text also makes unsubstantiated and vague claims about the mysticism and fairy tales of modern official cosmology, without specifying what they are or how they arise from Einstein's axiom.

My comments about the derivation of the gamma factor from right triangles are:

- The derivation is not rigorous or valid, as it assumes that the Pythagorean theorem holds for non-Euclidean geometry of Minkowski spacetime, which is not true. The Pythagorean theorem only holds for right triangles in Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the squares of the two shorter sides equals the square of the hypotenuse. In Minkowski spacetime, the spacetime interval between two events is given by a different formula, which involves a minus sign and the speed of light: s 2 = c 2 t 2 − x 2 − y 2 − z 2 (LaTeX: $s^ {2}=c^ {2}t^ {2}-x^ {2}-y^ {2}-z^ {2}$) . This formula does not correspond to any triangle in Euclidean geometry, and cannot be derived from the Pythagorean theorem.

- The derivation is not general or complete, as it only considers one-dimensional motion along the x-axis, and ignores the other spatial dimensions and rotations. The Lorentz transformation is a family of linear transformations that relate the coordinates of events in different inertial frames of reference, not just along one direction. The Lorentz transformation involves four parameters: three for spatial rotations and one for boosts along any direction. The gamma factor is a function of the relative velocity between the frames, which can have any direction and magnitude.

- The derivation merely reproduces a well-known result using a different notation and terminology. The gamma factor is defined as γ = 1 / sqrt(1 − v 2 / c 2) (LaTeX: $\gamma =1/ {\\sqrt {1-v^ {2}/c^ {2}}$ , where v is the relative velocity between the frames and c is the speed of light. This definition can be derived from the Lorentz transformation using simple algebra, without invoking any triangles or geometric arguments. The gamma factor has a clear physical meaning and interpretation, as it expresses how much time dilation, length contraction, mass increase, and energy increase occur for an object moving at relativistic speeds.

Lyudmil Antonov : Sir, I am sorry that I cannot preoccupy myself with your lengthy personal opinion and scholasticism. I am mainly interested in science and in this forum on theoretical physics and cosmolofy. Please forget about dialectics, the articles cited above deal mainly with the theories of Newton and Einstein, mostly from scientific and mathematical considerations alone. So, I would request you to judge these from scientific perspective first.

These articles are published in peer-reviewed journals and have been viewed by many physicists in and outside RG, including a Nobel Laureate in theoretical physics, but none so far (more than a year) could/did refute the claims made in these articles. One on Lorentz Transforms now even adorn the mouth-piece of INSPIRE, an organ that serves the High Energy Physics (HEP) community and the particle accelerators around the world:

https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

So, instead of expressing your lengthy personal opinion; please direct your attention to an evaluation of these publications and their implications. Thanks.

"So, instead of expressing your lengthy personal opinion; please direct your attention to an evaluation of these publications and their implications. Thanks."

This is what I did. I lost my time to clean the grain from the chaff but now I see that it is in vain.

The crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology is just the frustration of people that confuse technical content with social recognition. And believe that a 24/7 news cycle is relevant for the technical content of science, not, just, its social expression.

Cf. https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/afterword_v1a/afterword_v1a_singlefile.html

and https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/nyu_forum.html

for some insight on how technical content differs from social issues.

How scientific theories are developed and what their inventors thought about them is independent of their technical content. What Newton and Einstein thought about physics is distinct from the technical content of non-relativistic mechanics, special and general relativity. The people that stress the social issues, simply aspire to the social recognition of Newton and Einstein, which is separate from the content of their theories that, since then, can and has been, understood by anyone that goes to school. It would be a good idea if people spent more time studying classical and quantum mechanics and stopped confusing sociology with physics.

I see the topic on the title as the "Problems of modern cosmology", that is, the main unsolved ones to which efforts should be directed. This is quite independent of who has done this or that and how successful he has been in history. So, I will try to give the tone to the discussion by outlining the main problems starting from the subject.

Modern cosmology is the study of the origin, evolution and structure of the universe on the largest scales. It is based on a mathematical framework that tries to explain the observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the distribution of galaxies, the expansion rate of the universe and other phenomena. However, there are some problems and challenges that modern cosmology faces, such as:

- The cosmological constant problem: This is the discrepancy between the observed value of the dark energy density that causes the accelerated expansion of the universe and the theoretical value predicted by quantum field theory. The observed value is about 120 orders of magnitude smaller than the theoretical value, which is one of the biggest mismatches in physics.

- The Hubble tension: This is the disagreement between two independent methods of measuring the Hubble constant, which is the rate of expansion of the universe. One method uses observations of distant supernovae and CMB, while the other uses observations of local objects such as stars and galaxies. The two methods give different values that are not compatible within the uncertainties.

- The dark matter problem: This is the mystery of what constitutes most of the matter in the universe, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation and is only detected by its gravitational effects. There are various candidates for dark matter, such as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), axions, primordial black holes and modified gravity theories, but none of them has been conclusively detected or confirmed.

- The inflation problem: This is the question of how and why the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in its very early stages, which is assumed by most cosmological models to explain the flatness, homogeneity and isotropy of the universe and the origin of density fluctuations. There are many models of inflation, but none of them has a clear physical mechanism or a definitive observational test.

- The baryon asymmetry problem: This is the puzzle of why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe, since the standard model of particle physics predicts that they should have been created in equal amounts in the early universe. There must have been some mechanism that violated the symmetry between matter and antimatter and generated a slight excess of matter over antimatter, but the nature of this mechanism is unknown.

- The singularity problem: This is the difficulty of describing what happened at the very beginning of the universe, when the density and curvature of spacetime were infinite according to general relativity. Such a state is called a singularity and it implies a breakdown of the laws of physics. Some theories suggest that quantum effects may avoid the singularity or that there may have been a pre-Big Bang phase.

- The horizon problem: This is the question of why the CMB is so uniform across the sky, even in regions that are too far apart to have ever been in causal contact. This means that these regions must have had the same temperature and density in the past, but how did they achieve this thermal equilibrium? The standard solution is to invoke inflation, which stretched a tiny region of space to encompass the observable universe, but this raises other problems as mentioned before.

- The multiverse problem: This is the challenge of testing or falsifying the idea that our universe is just one of many possible universes that exist in a larger multiverse. Some theories, such as string theory and eternal inflation, predict that there are many different universes with different physical laws and constants, which may explain why our universe seems fine-tuned for life. However, there is no direct evidence for the existence of other universes and no clear way to observe them.

- The fine-tuning problem: Closely connected to the previous problem is the observation that the physical constants and initial conditions of the universe seem to be finely tuned for the emergence of life, such that a slight change in any of them would result in a radically different and inhospitable universe. This raises the question of why the universe is so fine-tuned and whether it implies a design or a selection principle. Some possible explanations are the anthropic principle, which states that we can only observe a universe that is compatible with our existence, or the multiverse hypothesis, which states that there are many different universes with different constants and conditions, and we happen to live in one that is suitable for life.

- The cosmic coincidence problem: This is the puzzle of why the densities of dark energy and dark matter are comparable today, when they have very different evolutions over time. Dark energy density is constant and does not dilute as the universe expands, while dark matter density decreases as the volume of the universe increases. Therefore, they must have had very different values in the past and will have very different values in the future. The fact that they are of the same order of magnitude today seems to be a remarkable coincidence that requires an explanation.

- The cosmological lithium problem: This is the discrepancy between the predicted and observed abundances of lithium-7 in the universe. According to the standard model of big bang nucleosynthesis, which describes how light elements were formed in the early universe, there should be about three times more lithium-7 than what is measured in old stars and gas clouds. The origin of this discrepancy is unclear and may indicate a problem with the standard model or some unknown process that destroyed lithium-7.

- The cosmic neutrino problem: This is the challenge of detecting and measuring the cosmic neutrino background (CNB), which is analogous to the CMB but consists of relic neutrinos from the early universe. Neutrinos are very weakly interacting particles that are extremely hard to detect, especially at low energies. The CNB could provide valuable information about the physics of the early universe and the properties of neutrinos, such as their masses and flavors.

These are some of the major unsolved problems in modern cosmology, but there are also other issues which now seem less problematic but may become major in the future and even give rise to new branches of physics just like the black body radiation gave rise to quantum mechanics.

Now for theoretical physics which is also in the title.

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena.

The problems there are much more than those of cosmology because the field encompasses many branches and physical phenomena. The biggest problem before theoretical physics today is

- The theory of everything: This is the quest for a singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe, such as quantum mechanics, general relativity, particle physics and cosmology. Such a theory would also reveal the nature of the fundamental entities and forces that govern the physical reality.

Other problems, still major and unsolved ones are

- The quantum measurement problem: This is the problem of understanding what happens when a quantum system is measured by an observer, and how the wave function of the system collapses to a definite state. There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics that attempt to resolve this problem, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, the many-worlds interpretation, the Bohmian interpretation and others, but none of them has been universally accepted or experimentally verified.

- The renormalization problem: This is the problem of dealing with the infinities that arise in some calculations in quantum field theory, such as the self-energy of a point particle or the vacuum energy of a field. Renormalization is a technique that removes these infinities by introducing some arbitrary parameters or cutoffs, but it is not clear whether this procedure is physically meaningful or mathematically consistent.

- The arrow of time problem: This is the problem of explaining why time seems to flow in one direction, from past to future, and why physical processes are irreversible at the macroscopic level, while the fundamental laws of physics are time-symmetric and reversible at the microscopic level. There are various possible explanations for this problem, such as the thermodynamic arrow of time based on entropy, the cosmological arrow of time based on the expansion of the universe, the quantum arrow of time based on decoherence, and others, but none of them is fully satisfactory or conclusive.

And many more. The list is subject to completion and expansion ...

Copy of a comment from Another RG forum:

Abdul Malek added a reply

13 hours ago

“I think we all can agree with the fact that physics is a science in progress.”

This indeed is true! Man used physics from the primitive time after he attained mastery over one of the forces of Nature, namely heat (fire) and developed and used physics through social/historical practice and technology; to change Nature and himself; to gain progressive freedom of the will. The greatest development of this process in history came with the Copernican revolution in Europe after the partial overthrow feudal/theological class rule by the revolutionary bourgeoisie.

But although technological development progressed due to social necessity, its engine, namely theory was soon corrupted by rehabilitating theology from the time of the “father” of modern physics, namely Isaac Newton. Knowledge, force, motion no longer needed to come from Nature itself, but God became supreme again providing the “First Impulse” and perfect circular orbits of the planets for Newton. Kepler’s natural elliptical orbits and Leibniz’s vis viva were crushed, thereby annihilating the essence of the Copernican revolution. The new hymn became, “The heavens sing the glory of the Lord and the firmaments showeth His handiwork”. It became the preoccupation of theology, theoretical physics and cosmology to INTERPRET this handiwork (the phenomenology) through scholastic arguments.

By the time of Kant, scholasticism became more sophisticated. It was no longer necessary for painful empirical observation, but one could just simply cook up “logical/mathematical categories” (in fact Newton started it) in one’s brain, which could then be imposed on the handiwork to deal with it more conveniently and moreover they were unknowable things-in themselves”, any way.

Your officially prescribed theoretical physics, my dear physicists unfortunately, is nothing but Kantian subjective idealism based on Einsteinian (very easy to perform) “thought experiment” – the pabulum of modern theoretical physics since Einstein. This pabulum feeds and indoctrinates the generations of modern scientist-priests in the Churches (aka, the universities) around world, to keep them preoccupied with endless and meaningless medieval-type scholasticism; while the high priests (Nobel Awarded ones) “determine" through “experimental proof”, which elements of scholasticism are acceptable.

In any case and most of all; your valid theories are decided at the pinnacle of science, i.e., the Vatican. This would be evident from what Geoffrey Burbidge, a prominent astrophysicist had to say about the “Big Bang” theory: “By 1982 when a conference on cosmology was held at the Vatican, a new approach was taken. The radicals around, such as F. Hoyle, V. Ambartsumian, and this speaker (to mention a few) were not even invited. The conference was confined completely to Big Bang cosmology and its proponents. In fact, in the introduction to the published volume of the proceedings of the meeting (Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1982) it was emphasized that only believers (in the Big Bang) were present; and that there was clearly a deliberate decision of the organizers”. Burbidge G. Vatican Conference on big bang. In G. Münch, ­A. Mampaso, ­FSánchez Ed. The Universe at Large: Key Issues in Astronomy and Cosmology, Cambridge University Press 1997.

The reference cited above shows this ugly truth in detail. Cheers

@Stam Nicolis> "The crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology is just the frustration of people that confuse technical content with social recognition."

No, unfortunately I am obliged to bring the ugly truth to the wider and the broader scientific community in RG : "The crisis in modern theoretical physics and cosmology" is the result of the Unholy Trinity of Big Money (including Big Sex Peddlers and ‘the prostitution of intellectual activity’); Big Theology and Big “Serfdom Science”!

Press reports:

The British newspaper, The Guardian report: The MIT-Epstein debacle shows ‘the prostitution of intellectual activity’. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/07/jeffrey-epstein-mit-funding-tech-intellectuals

BBC reports:

Big Bang and religion mixed in Cern debate

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19870036

Big Bang: Is there room for God?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19997789

More on how Big Money, Beauties, "Big Minds" and Big Science converge:

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-science-eugenics-sexual-abuse-researchers.html

Excerpt from one the links above:

[LAWRENCE KRAUSS:] “I just returned from the Virgin Islands, from a delightful event — a conference in St. Thomas — that I organized with 21 physicists. I like small events, and I got to hand-pick the people. The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity. " I wanted to have a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology. And if you think about it they all revolve in one way or another around gravity. Someone at the meeting said, well, you know, don't we understand gravity? Things fall. But really, many of the key ideas that right now are at the forefront of particle physics cosmology, relate to our lack of understanding of how to accommodate gravity and quantum mechanics.

I invited a group of cosmologists, experimentalists, theorists, and particle physicists. Stephen Hawking came. We had three Nobel laureates: Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross, Frank Wilczek; well-known cosmologists and physicists such as Jim Peebles at Princeton, Alan Guth at MIT, Kip Thorne at Caltech, Lisa Randall at Harvard; experimentalists, such as Barry Barish of LIGO, the gravitational wave observatory; we had observational cosmologists, people looking at the cosmic microwave background; we had Maria Spiropulu from CERN, who's working on the Large Hadron Collider—which, a decade ago, people wouldn't have thought it was a probe of gravity, but now due to recent work in the possibility of extra dimensions it might be.”

https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero

It is currently very easy to publish all sorts of articles, so complaining about Big Money etc. just fails. However there are much fewer papers that do propose technical solutions and many more articles that complain that someone else is getting attention.

Anyone that wants to propose a technical solution to so-called problems in cosmology can do so very easily.

Stam Nicolis > "It is currently very easy to publish all sorts of articles, so complaining about Big Money etc. just fails."

This is a shameless statement. Complaining, specially from the heretics means very little, precisely because, Big Science has Big Hands to drown the heretics with the picture of smiling Cosmic Cheshire Cats, even after the Cats vanish from the universe; YouTube sermons and if necessary Nobel Awards etc., to obliterate the "complains", leaving no trace of the crime!

But not for long, I guess. It is not only the journalists (with many more reports in addition to the ones cited above), but REAL SCIENCE represented by the heretics and even by some non-heretics alike, also are catching up with this kind of vandalism in science. Well. Scientific American is not exactly heretic, but it says: Jeffrey Epstein and the Decadence of Science: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/jeffrey-epstein-and-the-decadence-of-science/

Am in support of Abdul Malek His scientific views are sound, with respect to natural dialectics and physics.

Yet if anyone believes that the earth rotates, surely he will hold that its motion is natural, not violent.

Nicolaus Copernicus

So there's no point in complaining that any views are, somehow, ``suppressed'' these days... The only complaint might be about awards; but it just doesn't make sense, on the one hand, complaining about persecution of ``heretics'' and, on the other, wanting to be rewarded by the same institutions one is complaining that they're ``persecuting heretics''. Nobody's being ``persecuted'' and it's possible to propagate any opinion desired-as is the case, here. The technical content of cosmological models isn't the subject of the discussion at all; anyone can claim being Copernicus, but Copernicus lived a long time ago and nobody is being persecuted for their cosmological model-they're just being ignored.

The downside of nobody paying attention is that nobody's in a hurry to award...

Stephen I. Ternyik > "Yet if anyone believes that the earth rotates, surely he will hold that its motion is natural, not violent". Nicolaus Copernicus

Thanks for your kind words for me, dear Stephen I. Ternyik and also for the important quote from Copernicus - the primary focus of this RG question.

It seems to me that Leibniz's scientific concept of Vis Viva, has its root in this assertion of Copernicus, as against the faith of "First Impulse" from God, for Isaac Newton!

This also reinforces the validity and the credibility of my formulation of the Total dialectical (Leibniz, Newton and Hegel) Gravitational Potential: E= mA/r^3 - GMm/r – mCr^2, [5] (where A, C are constants), as more appropriate for any cosmic formation; planetary, star clusters, galaxies etc., and against Newton's one-sided, idealist and unidirectional and universal gravitational attraction an axiomatic premise, which in fact is behind the Big/Black/Dark Cosmic Monsters of modern official Fairy-Tale cosmology! (2) (PDF) Quō Vādis Theoretical Physics and Cosmology? From Newton's Metaphysics to Einstein's Theology!. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361442433_Quo_Vadis_Theoretical_Physics_and_Cosmology_From_Newton's_Metaphysics_to_Einstein's_Theology [accessed Jun 08 2023].

That the Newtonian potential varies like 1/r with the distance and not like 1/r^3 or r^2, doesn't have any ``dialectical'' basis, because it doesn't depend on what anyone particular believes; it's the result of an impersonal calculation that only the term that varies like 1/r contributes to the potential. Newton found it by a direct calculation and it became much easier to do the calculation some centuries later.

Indeed the reasoning-that's part of all university curricula, now-is that spherical symmetry implies that the potential is a function only of the distance, r, from the source: V(x,y,z)=f(r).

The unique solution to Poisson's equation, Laplacian f(r) = const δ(r) is Const/r, in three spatial dimensions, where const and Const are constants.

It is a straightforward exercise to find the solution for any number of spatial dimensions.

So, first of all, the expression proposed isn't the most general one and, second, even if one puts it in Poisson's equation, one will find A=0=C.

It's not a game of hit or miss.

Even in Newton's time people weren't discussing science in the theological terms used with Copernicus and Galileo...Which was considerable progress-though there were regressions in the 20th century, which, fortunately, didn't last long.

They actually found the Higg's boson, or if it was trace and space around it. It is more artificial, ofcourse. The atmospheric motions for example are more well known in its connection to gravity. Plasma has several states; it looks as if self gravitates, but it's a nomenclature, de moi ?

The Higgs boson is a part of Nature as much as Newtonian mechanics or fluid mechanics.

Newtonian mechanics is an approximation to relativistic mechanics, which is an approximation to relativistic field theory-and among all possible relativistic field theories, it turns out that the Standard Model, which describes the strong, electromagnetic and weak interactions of matter, when quantum fluctuations can't be neglected, describes the properties of matter in our Universe, to a certain approximation. One form of matter is made up of particles that are called Higgs bosons.

When electromagnetic interactions dominate, and quantum fluctuations can be neglected, matter can be described as a fluid, which is called a plasma.

The names are conventions, their meaning, only, matters. And while the history is fascinating, the technical meaning is more so.

All this is now taught in all curricula in physics and doesn't depend on what people believe or not. The physical phenomena described by the Standard Model, describe our Universe since way before humans appeared and don't depend on the presence of humans, nor on the particular humans, that understood them first.

So theoretical physics and cosmology are doing just fine. It would be a good idea if more people avail themselves of the resources that are now available and actually studied them; anyone can do it.

This: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ might be a good place to start.

And these lecture notes: Article Lecture Notes on General Relativity

Stam Nicolis > "it's the result of an impersonal calculation that only the term that varies like 1/r contributes to the potential. Newton found it by a direct calculation and it became much easier to do the calculation some centuries later."

Science is NOT a question of EQUATIONs; brain-cooked ideal "mathematical categories" of Kantian subjective idealism, which is them imposed on poor Nature (objective reality); while she herself remains a mysterious and unknowable Kantian "thing-in-itself"! This is NOT science, this is metaphysics.

The essence of this article is about the scientific, (applied) mathematical and materialistic dialectical (philosophical) refutation of Newton's and Einstein's mathematical idealism in theoretical physics and cosmology. Many well-known theoretical physicists/mathematicians in RG and elsewhere, including even a Nobel Laureate who read these publications by this author, so far did not show the temerity to challenge the claims of these publications. So, the scholastic claims of a spurious "academic physicist" can be easily discounted!

Positive knowledge of objective reality (as against idle thought, fancy, fantasy, mathematical or not) comes from social/historical practice, experience, technology; through which man (as a species) changed Nature and also himself to attain progressive "freedom of the will"! This is what history shows us!

Limited knowledge about gravity came from Galileo's experimental observation on Earth and his immortal inverse square law and is valid on or near the surface of the Earth (Apple falling on Newton's head, not going up!); and this conforms to the historical practice of men. Newton, with foolish arrogance and at the behest of the State and the Church (the ruling power) transported this positive knowledge, after giving it a brain-cooked ideal mathematical form and imposed this ideal thought on the solar system, lock, stock and barrel and claimed a "UNIVERSAL LAW" and Einstein extended this "LAW" over the whole universe - a crime against scientific knowledge that haunts humanity ever since!

But with all these hymn and worship of Newton's theory; our "physicists" must know that it is Leibniz's Vis Viva EQUATION and NOT Newton's EQUATION, is now used by the engineers, who send space vehicles to various destinations in outer space< Even Wikipedia says so! Vis-viva equation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vis-viva_equation

Lena J-T Strömberg : Hi Lena, thanks for joining in this discussion.

One can write long articles making all sorts of claims; they can't matter.

It doesn't matter what the equations are called, nor whose name is associated with them. The ``vis viva equation'' is a straightforward consequence of Newtonian mechanics-even though, historically, neither Leibniz nor Newton used it that way. So what?

Nobody is asking for credit, except people who haven't done anything comparable to either Newton, Leibniz or Einstein, but seek only glory, not by association, but by making claims that can be trivially seen to be wrong, when they make sense. It's easy to spell the name of a famous person-much harder to actually do something comparable at another time. If the people who write now about Newton and Einstein actually tried to do something useful, like learning physics, instead of expressing their frustration that they can't get recognition, since they don't try to learn anything about it, that would be a start... One can't get recognition in physics, without doing physics...(It's hard getting recognition, even when doing physics :) )

Stam Nicolis > "It doesn't matter what the equations are called, nor whose name is associated with them."

One could not care less about lame and shameless excuses to avoid the truth! This forum is about serious science and is a vindication of Leibniz's profound dialectical views that any cosmic formation is a contradiction of the "unity of the opposites". which is subject to change, development, evolution, dissipation etc., in course of time, in this Infinite, Eternal and Ever-changing Universe. The present publications proposes an improvement on Leibniz's formulation, in the face of new and improved knowledge of astrophysics. This improved formulation of gravitational potential negates the rubbish that official physics from Newton onward imposed on humanity and the universe. Good riddance of this centuries long metaphysics and theology!

Only the spurious priests of Newtonian/Einsteinian theology, puffed-up with fame, fortune (now also teen-age beauties) and funds can engage in endless and meaningless mathematics driven scholasticism! Amen!!

"Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies": http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

"Oh the fresh, the raw, the breaking light

Save the half-dead, with thy fatal strike!"

The words of the Nobel Laureate Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore - (English translation, AM)

It's remarkable what text generators can accomplish these days...

But what all the protests don't address is the answer to the question, ``So what?''.

The purpose of physics isn't arguments over who did what when, or, even, how, but to solve problems-to produce solutions that anyone can understand.

The protests don't solve any problem that hasn't been, already, solved and don't show how to address, much less solve, any open problems.

They just serve to draw attention.

Stam Nicolis > "It's remarkable what text generators can accomplish these days..."

Alles was entsteht, Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht! (English Translation: All that exist deserves to perish).

The words of Mephistopheles in Goethe’s “Faust”.

It's remarkable that people that claim that things are only worth destroying, just don't stop dealing with them... They claim not having anything useful to say; they could not have said anything to begin with and nothing would have changed...

It is not only the heretic "text (sic) generation" that is saying all these!

Scientific American is not exactly heretic, but says exactly the same things: Jeffrey Epstein and the Decadence of Science: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/jeffrey-epstein-and-the-decadence-of-science/

A scientific revolution, like the Copernican revolution not only destroys the decadent old but also plants the seeds for the creative new! The New can only arise over the decaying Old!

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas": Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

One shouldn't confuse sociology with physics. The ``Copernican revolution'' had more to do with challenging the doctrine of the Catholic church than anything else. Science isn't about doctrines of faith-though it was considered as such. How people should live doesn't have anything to do with how to describe natural phenomena. Once that was understood, the Church lost its power, that's all. Fascinating history, not so interesting physics.

Once Newtonian mechanics was understood and what it meant to change reference frames, people understood that one could describe the motion of planets in any frame. It was sociology that set a preferred frame (heliocentric/geocentric) not physics.

And Newtonian mechanics was understood to be a limiting case of relativistic mechanics (whose first example, in fact, was discovered by d'Alembert in the 18th century: The motion of a vibrating string is the first example of motion that is invariant under what would be called in the late 19th century, Lorentz transformations). And so on.

The important point is that physics involves successive approximations, not philosophical arguments. It's not about personal taste, but controlling the approximations.

New knowledge arises from people that study, not people that complain... Science isn't a spectator sport. It's about thinking and doing calculations and experiments in the first person, not the third person...

A lot of things have been done after Newton-and the science of the 19th century owes much more to Maxwell, Lorentz, Lorenz and Boltzmann and nothing, regarding physics, to Hegel, who doesn't deserve being mentioned in vain in this context. He was interested in other subjects, to which Maxwell, Lorentz, Lorenz and Boltzmann didn't contribute.

Stam Nicolis > "Once Newtonian mechanics was understood..."

This is patently false and arises out of the ignorance of science and history! As this publication clearly shows, Newton's subjective idealism (metaphysics) was meant (against the opposition of Leibniz and others) to do exactly the opposite, i.e., to bring back geocentric cosmology and to undermine the Copernican revolution at the behest of the Imperial State and the Church!

What Newton, maybe-and everybody since, certainly-understood was that the statement whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth was (a) meaningless and (b) why it was meaningless: Because a change of frame can't change anything. If the reference frame isn't ``inertial'' there are forces that need to be taken into account, but the rules were clear-and general relativity made them even simpler.

Of course for people that haven't learned Newtonian mechanics at all this isn't surprising, but inevitable. Bu it suffices to study Newtonian mechanics-the 2-body problem is a standard exercise.

The fact that the Church imposed an interpretation of natural phenomena as a doctrine of faith doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the interpretation, because it was done as an expression of power. That it was, not only, wrong but, actually, meaningless doesn't mean that it couldn't be used to impose power.

Ignorance with arrogance, thy name is Newtonian/Einsteinian physics!

Objective truth hurts, but only where, when and to whom it must!

Objective truth hurts only in the situations where the aim is to impose pain. In science there's no point to this. The Church in the Middle Ages wasn't into either truth or science, but into political power. And people that claim that they can impose violence ``for doing good'' really want to exercise political power as dictators, not even democrats, and are even less interested in science, precisely because science doesn't play favorites.

Once more, it would be a good idea to learn physics-this would be a good place to start: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

However fascinating it is to read nonsense, this thread doesn't have anything to do with either theoretical physics or cosmology. It seems to serve only to generate reads.

Stam Nicolis > "Once more, it would be a good idea to learn physics"

Unfortunately, I could not be bothered with trash metaphysics and foolish, endless meaningless scholasticism. I challenge you or any one else to refute the claims (at least) in the following two journal publications; with any published works and not through ignorant comments in RGI Until then I would not respond to any further comments from you, Sir!

Auf Wiedersehen!

Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

INSPIRE (HEP): https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

An entreaty to all those following this forum:

This question and the publication cited in the introduction, represent a frontal challenge to the continuing medieval theology, masquerading as science. This is an appeal for the restoration of the essence of the Copernican revolution – the greatest revolution in human history; but which, underwent degradation from Newton through to Einstein and has brought decadence of modern natural science. This restoration can only be achieved through a dialectical “negation of the negation” of the Copernican revolution.

Thanks for caring to follow this forum,

Best regards, Abdul

Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.

John Wheeler

(9 Jul 1911 - 13 Apr 2008)

Quoted in Denis Brian, The Voice Of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries, 127

The only thing harder to understand than a law of statistical origin would be a law that is not of statistical origin, for then there would be no way for it—or its progenitor principles—to come into being. On the other hand, when we view each of the laws of physics—and no laws are more magnificent in scope or better tested—as at bottom statistical in character, then we are at last able to forego the idea of a law that endures from everlasting to everlasting.

— John Wheeler

In 'Law without Law' (1979), in John Archibald Wheeler and Wojciech Hubert Zurek (eds.), Quantum Theory and Measurement(1983), 203.

No theory of physics that deals only with physics will ever explain physics. I believe that as we go on trying to understand the universe, we are at the same time trying to understand man.

— John Wheeler

In The Intellectual Digest (June 1973), as quoted and cited in Mark Chandos, 'Philosophical Essay: Story Theory", Kosmoautikon: Exodus From Sapiens (2015)

——————————

In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of Descartes, Laplace, and Humboldt. In matters of fact, the bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. A few years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the bible. The tables have been turned, and now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the bible is not inconsistent with Science. The standard has been changed. Robert G. Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses

——————

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38099/38099-h/38099-h.htm

Conclusion:

Certain quasi-theological assumptions are the mistakes (errors) of modern physics.

Both theoretical physics and cosmology are undoubtedly on the right track to more splendid discoveries in the Universe and multiverse and how nature works according to mathematical rules and principles,showing that Einstein has been right.

Here are two latest galactic dark-matter-and-dark-energy confirmation and equivalence-principle test proving that general relativity is correct to a remarkable degree of accuracy,and it will remain so for hundreds of years to come if not eternally.

https://scitechdaily.com/dark-order-in-the-universe-distant-galaxies-align-to-support-einsteins-general-relativity/

https://www.space.com/einstein-general-relativity-test-microscope-satellite

Copy of a comment from another forum relevant to this one:

[Abdul Malek added a reply

17 minutes ago

Steffen Kühn > “Let us further assume that an observer perceives only that part which has speed c in its own rest frame (there are several variations of this hypothesis). Note that the paradox is solved with this”.

This unfortunately, is not science, but scholasticism and metaphysics. In philosophy it is known as “positivism” of Bishop Berkeley. One of Berkeley’s philosophic principles was esse est percipi, or to be is to be perceived. So anything imperceptible does not exist! It means that an independent objective reality outside my perception or thought, does not exist or even if exist! It is like Kantian unknowable thing-in-itself or the Copenhagen (Bohr) interpretation and subjective idealism!

This is scholastic self-delusion, foolish sophistry and ideal mathematics driven arrogance, which in essence supports mysticism and theology, This delusion has infected theoretical physics and cosmology since Albert Einstein. This is the tragic result when theoretical “physicists” like Feynman think that “Philosophy of science is as useful to the physicists as ornithology is to the birds”!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Speed_of_light_independent_of_the_speed_of_the_source_or_constant_for_all_observers/33

So we need a theory from quantum to relativity, incompatible descriptions of reality?

I have one solution, just unifing strong nuclear force and gravity force.

I have one solution, just unifing strong nuclear force and gravity force.

This is easy to say and hard to do.

He asked for a phylosophical foundation, simplicity is the phylosophy of science.

The solution could be a bit more complex, like all in physics, simpler theories should carry to more complex ones.

Sergio Perez Felipe> "simplicity is the phylosophy (sic!) of science."

This idea is totally false and unscientific! This is no philosophy, either; this is lazy axiomatic fantasy (whatever their origin, either Einsteinian or theological)) cooked-up in thought; (like you are doing, Sir!), which requires that the reality must (eventually?) corresponds to this truth! This is nothing but wishful thinking - neither science nor philosophy!

The question asked in this forum is justified by the content that it refers to in a scientific publication! Dialectical philosophy rejects axiomatic truth. On the contrary, for Hegel, "Truth is philosophy means that concepts and reality corresponds". This can strictly happen ONLY AFTER the reality is thoroughly known and is expressed as in a concept!

“Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready. History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom. When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.” G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right (1820), "Preface"; translated by S W Dyde, 1896.

Abdul Malek I wrote this about the unification between strong nuclear force and gravity force.

https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9464

I'd like simplicity and its evolution (I believe in Occam's razor and standing on the shoulders of giants).

It remembers me first Feynman diagrams.

Dear Sergio Perez Felipe : I am sorry, Sir; I am unable to go on a discussion with your publication. You have done the unification between strong nuclear force and gravity force", in thought as a brain-cooked product; it is not science and has nothing to do with reality, which has to be shown through social/historical practice - the only criteria of objective knowledge or truth. Einstein has led modern official theoretical physics and cosmology to this fantasy land of scholasticism, which produces nothing but myths and Fairy Tales!

Fortunately, Einstein's "Castle in the Air" and the fantasy land is now demolished and lies shattered to pieces. Only just the following two publications would show you the wreckage of that Castle: "The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology"

INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

"KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling Ideas" Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

The Feynman diagrams is a mathematical trick or a sophisticated magic - The same brain-cooked fantasy of official theoretical physics; "that does not impress me much"! The reality is different, Please see a dialectical alternative to Feynman's QED; please don't be shocked if I say, "what you and others have learnt of theoretical physics and cosmology, unfortunately, is just Fairy Tales" Please see my other publications in my RG profile, including the following one: "Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and Other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena." Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Please note: Unfortunately, I will not continue this dialogue with you. May be others might join in. Thanks for your understanding.

Regards, Abdul

Sergio Perez Felipe

I read your paper and it was a refreshing read after the bla-bla-bla and insinuations of the previous post.

The connections that you make are simple and easy to check with experiments. The text spans different areas of physics which at present don't "talk" to each other.

I am curious about the following. The most distant galaxies observed by the JWST are said to be about 300000 ly after the Big Bang, which makes about 13.5 billion ly, but you write that the distance is more than 30 billion ly. Do you have in mind the space curvature due to the singularity?

Lyudmil Antonov What do you propose? Conclusions for the study from my paper are not good enough (to try to extract vacuum and redirect it)!

Of course the connections are simple and easy (first four pages are like a pacifier mechanism). You can even add something in LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7079359604660330496?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

I have seen your energy pseudotensor (I miss some graphics, I think it's a lack in physics for understanding).

Sergio Perez Felipe

Unfortunately, I am better at relativity than at quantum physics or chromodynamics. I know just a few basic things. One of these is that strong force is strong only at very small distances (within the protons and neutrons) and is almost non-existent outside them. Other thing is the quarks are to a large extent virtual, not because they do not exist but because they exist for a very short time. The speeds that gluons move the energy among the 3 quarks (speeds that quarks change color) are close to the speed of light so, in fact, 98% of the mass of nucleus is energy by the formula E=mc2, and only 2% is rest mass.

I am not sure if the space curvature is just the sum of the curvatures of individual nucleons or there is some other functional (strong force -> curvature), but, of course, this can be checked by experiments that take into account the relativistic effects.

The general theory of relativity is generally accepted mainly due to the fact that it uses the well-developed mathematical apparatus of Riemannian geometry. Unfortunately, this good development leads scientists to two opposite conclusions. First. Full acceptance of the general theory of relativity as a complete theory of the world. Second. To the criticism of its mathematical basis (Riemannian geometry) and its complete denial. As you know, the criterion of truth in science is experiment. Therefore, no matter what theory we work within, it is necessary to pay attention to phenomena that are not explained by theory. The conclusion follows from this: it is necessary to use such a mathematical theory, a special case of which is Einstein's theory of relativity. In this case, Hegel's correspondence principle is fulfilled: the new theory must contain the old one as a special case. To do this, without touching the foundations of the theory of relativity, one should pay attention to the prohibitions existing in it, due to the structure of the Riemannian geometry itself. This is the way to expand modern general relativity and relativistic cosmology.

Larissa Borissova : Thanks for your realistic comment as opposed to what appeared above recently. But first of all, I would reject your harmful assertion, “As you know, the criterion of truth in science is experiment.”, This is a totally false and manipulative “criterion of truth in science” implanted in the minds of modern scientists and is used with impunity and ruthless efficiency to “prove” the esoteric (and false) theories of modern official physics and cosmology, luring the unprincipled and ambitious scientists with the promise of fame fortune and fund – a total corruption of natural science in general at the behest of monopoly capitalism.

Experimentally “Proving” esoteric theories, is an act, AFTER the fact and is subject to conformation bias and wilful manipulation to desired ends! This trick of a “criterion of truth” was devised by the opportunist and turncoat “Marxist” Karl Popper at the turn of the 20th century to make axiomatic and mathematical idealism-based theories of modern physics, which have absolutely no basis in objective reality. Theories of relativity are Kantian subjective idealism and axiomatic truths of just brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories and imposing them on objective reality. This is not science, but is metaphysics and new myths and are used to reinforce theology as the ruling tool.

Objective truth can only be ascertained with positive knowledge (as opposed to myths of esoteric theories) of Nature, gained through social/historical practice, technology etc. None of the theories of classical physics needed even a single “experimental proof” (like now), because those theories arose out of practice or accidental discoveries and in turn led to further and advanced practice and technologies and are "proved" daily in millions of practice by humanity. Modern esoteric theories, which you mention, do not qualify this criterion and hence are not scientific theories at all, but are fantasies!

The following quote from Einstein himself would justify my assertions above: “Geometry sets out from certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct ("true") when it has been derived in the recognized manner from the axioms. The question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning … The concept "true" does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves” Albert Einstein; Relativity: The Special and General Theory.. Methuen & Co. Ltd. 1952.

Please have a look at the following publication, in which I have shown that Lorentz Transforms and “spacetime” on which the “Castle in the Air” of modern theoretical physics and cosmology is built are just contrived and abstract mathematical construct, which have absolutely no basis in objective reality and are just Fairy Tales, made credible only through “experimental proofs”: : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

Dear Abdul,

Very good statements ... I agree with them. If based on natural objective idealism! I created the foundations for such a system in 1993-1995. For this I lost my job...

I use the same metaphysical method to explain the phenomenon of gravity (gravitational waves, garvitons):

Research Proposal Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton (Fiz...

Your previous comment is justified by the next article:

Research AZ ELMÉLETI TUDOMÁNY KÉNYES JELENSÉGE

Regards,

Laszlo:

P.S: There is no man without idealism, and this is only true if his idealism seeks for objectify! In Hungarian it sounds better: Az ember nem létezhet idealizmusa nélkül, de mindez akkor igaz, ha ez az idealizmus objektívításon alapszik!