The biggest problem of theoretical physics is that Einstein's relativity is considered holy and sacred since it venerates the light.

Here is the strongest disproof of Einstein's relativity, read it objectively :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347203242_The_correct_formulas_of_Michelson-Morley_experiment

I want you also to discover the very useful thesis that I published. My work proposes a New method to avoid the problems of Newtonian mechanics in the quantum scale. It can also answer some questions that rise when studying some Cosmic objects that rotate at a very High linear speed.

My work contains also elementary differential operators that can easilly be integrated. (Electromagnetism and radiation)

I will be ready to answer all your questions regarding my works.

This is the link to my article on Researchgate :

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347239549_A_thesis_about_Newtonian_mechanics_rotations_and_about_differential_operators

SRT is completely erroneous since it is based on the wrong kind of transformations: they have lost the scale factor characterizing the Doppler effect (which defines the asymmetry between approach and removal).

First, Lorentz considered a more general form of transformations (with a scale factor), but then he, and also Poincare and Einstein equated it 1 without proper grounds. Their form was artificially narrowed, the formulas became incorrect. This led to a logical contradiction of the theory, to unsolvable paradoxes. Accordingly, GRT is also incorrect. For more details, see my brochure "Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory" (2000):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339090652_Memoir_on_the_Theory_of_Relativity_and_Unified_Field_Theory

Lev Verkhovsky

The Gerber formula was never properly derived. The model doesn't make sense.

If you want to understand how one derives the laws of nature, download this Python notebook. There, I derived the laws of nature.

https://github.com/ny2292000/CMB_HU/blob/master/AAA_Final_Derivation_of_Laws-3D_4_Body_1.ipynb

To make things worse, it recovers Einstein's precession formula, which is only valid for a single-mass problem. In other words, what you call success is actually a failure because the GR Law of Precession is wrong (limited scope).

In other words, the only body that follows a geodesic in spacetime is a massless photon or a very small mass (relative to the other).

In other words, Einstein's Relativity, both General and Special, is wrong, not because of an arbitrary and ad hoc multiplicative factor on the Doppler Effect, but because of Physics.

That is the subject of this discussion. Since you proudly provided me with your own theory, I am providing a peer review.

Yep. It is a crackpot model. You postulated an extra parameter. You stopped at Gerber (an incorrect, unsupported model), failed to explain things that supposedly GR explains (e.g., Supernova data).

You can find attached my modeling ot the Pantheon Supernova Survey data.

HU eliminated the Crisis in Cosmology or Hubble Tension. HU value for H0 is 67.5 km/s/Mpc while the CMB HO is 67.485 km/s/Mpc.

Find your peer review among the attachments.

Best wishes,

Marco Pereira

Akram Louiz

Please, read my reply to Lev.

Attached is a review of your work. It contains unphysical hypotheses that are refuted by Optics (for example).

If interested, here is the discussion with ChatGPT.

https://chatgpt.com/share/68c0ac91-50e0-8010-80f0-97dbde163f92

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Lev Verkhovsky and Akram Louiz

You do know that I created this discussion to discuss my work. I say that because you can always do the same.

You wouldn't like me to go to your discussions and blurt my work there, would you?

That said, it is always easy to debunk poor science.

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

Marco Pereira: You do know that I created this discussion to discuss my work.

You are right. But in February 2024, I personally sent you a link to my work by email. You did not give me a meaningful response. So I decided to try to get your attention again.

In general, this is an open platform where everyone publishes what they want, and everyone reads what they want. So your work (and mine and any author's) will be discussed by those who are interested in them.

Best, LV

Thank you, Marco Pereira for the file _Lev Verkhovsky.pdf

This is quite curious. I especially liked this:

Crackpot indicators present: Reliance on “lost multiplier” overlooked by all 20th-century physicists.

Yes, by all 20th-century physicists.

Lev Verkhovsky

ChatGPT is a great resource to get an impartial review of your work. I used it myself.

If you present a convincing counterargument, he will accept it.

I benefited a lot from trying to convince ChatGPT about my ideas.

Look what ChatGPT thought about your reply.

If you want to have fun, you are welcome to send my articles to ChatGPT and see if it calls me a crackpot. Of course, you also have to feed my counterarguments and explanations...:)

By the way, don't be offended by being called a crackpot by ChatGPT. It just means that you are impervious (will never accept being wrong or that your work is irrelevant). You will keep making excuses and pushing your articles forward, no matter what.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. It is all about self-delusion.

Your reply didn't pass muster.

Marco

SSRN Abstracts

# HU-The Big Pop Cosmogenesis

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012159

# The Hypergeometrical Universe

https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5012064

# Debunking NASA

# Reevaluating_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Constraints_on_Epoch_Nature.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5188030

https://zenodo.org/records/15399641

Despite all his erudition, ChatGPT does not have a developed intuition. Therefore, his opinion is of little interest.

Of course, I'm not offended by him (it seems to me that he is more polite and benevolent than many physicists).

Lev Verkhovsky

ChatGPT cannot create new areas of research at this time. That said, he can be a powerful critic.

Please answer his criticism. That is how you grow. That is how you become wise.

Don't be self-delusional.

Lev Verkhovsky

If you want ChatGPT to provide vigorous criticism, you don't start the conversation by saying - Please review this great work of science.

If you want criticism, you say: Please check this for crackpottery...

and ask: Is this model supported by observations or reality?

Does this model make sense?

You are welcome to do that to my work. That is how you get strong criticism.

So, if ChatGPT mentioned Crackpot, that is just because I asked if this was crackpot work. Please don't blame him... He is polite and a politician.

Everything ChatGPT says, I know without him -- it's just a bunch of platitudes. Therefore, I do not intend to participate in discussions with him.

That is your loss.

This summer I received a review of two my papers on the theory of relativity. I`ll try to publish here

Lev Verkhovsky

Create your own discussion about your work and publish it there. Stop misdirecting this conversation for your own vanity, Lev.

I already told you my opinion of it.

Okay, Marco, I won't write or publish anything related to my work here anymore.

Thank God. This is a discussion about my work. You showed me your work. I provided a peer review.

The correct approach would be to send me a private message asking me to review it, instead of cluttering this discussion.

Before Special Relativity, scientific explanations were primarily based on forces.

Gravitation is now the primary exception to this force-based explanation.

The concept of "Mass deforms Spacetime" in gravitation lacks an explicit underlying mechanism.

Mohana Sundaram P

You are correct. In addition, I provided the logic and mechanism for the derivation of the Force.

The Force produces the observed precessions.

HU also predicted the galaxy distribution across the whole universe.

As you can see, a Force can replace Tensorial Calculus, Metrics, Riemannian Geometry... blah, blah, blah. And kill Spacetime, once and for all.

That is a requirement if Science is to move forward.