Who will determine which words are fake and which are not?

Some of the fake words are clearly known by many people. For example, “Einstein's famous equation E=mc2” is a clear fake words.

Now, it has been known by many people that it is De Pretto who originally presented E=mc2 from the energy of atomic nuclei. His explanation about E=mc2 is the current explanation in today’s theory of relativity. And, Ohanian showed that in 7 papers, Einstein’s mathematics derivations about this equation are wrong.

But, the fake words “Einstein's famous equation E=mc2” is prevailing. Therefore, the name of De Pretto is being shielded. It is not suitable in scientific ethic.

So, for the scientific ethic and to respect De Pretto, the right words should be “De Pretto’s famous equation E=mc2”.

Of course, all this is important for the history of science.

But the real problem is different: there are many critics of, say, the theory of relativity, but there is no unity of views among them -- everyone develops their own approach and is little interested in the works of other authors. As a result, there is no progress.

We should censor nothing in scientific debates except incitement of violence and personal insults. The freedom of speach is the most important human right even if it goes against scientific consensus at any given time. Duscuss, duscuss and argue. There is a grain of truth in any unorthodox claim which requires continuous debates which in time resolves itself as a new consensus when the merits of unpopular objections are found.

Special Relativity is a clinical case marked with neverending controversies.

For instant the counterintuitive aspect of relative simultaneity. There is nothing wrong with Einstein's defined relative simultaneity whic is a stipulation later found not creating contradiction. Too complex to explain in a short message. But the use of the word "simultaneity" is unfortunate because it does not apply to the one and only Absolute Simultaneity (AS) declared to be a meaningless concept that is far from the truth. This, however, is not sufficiently exposed in the current publications. Without justification right now I can affirm that relative and Absolute simultaneity seamlessly coexist without contradiction.

Should I be banned to present my argument in a publication because authorities believe it is a nonsense?

Coming back to relative simultaneity.

It is not an accident that the first English translation of Einstein's 1905 paper in 1921 by Saha and Bose replaces the world "simultaneity" with "synchronism". Do you think Bose was reckless doing so?

Yin Zhu

Fake WORDS? I didn't get it. This leads us to nomenclature. Do you mean false statements?

Dear Dr. Rad Maythil ,

I agree with you. That I hope to say is false statements. Now, I revised my question.

Thank you very much.

Lev Verkhovsky I think, false statements cannot be useful for the progress of physics. In fact, it is stopping the progress. And, I think, “the main reason for the death of physics is that the false statements are prevailing”.

It is much more important, any important people with any important theory of science, even like Einstein, cannot have the authority to make De Pretto’s name shielded from the equation of E=mc2.

Andrew Wutke I need basic ethic standard and scientific standard.

In the basic ethic standard, the false statements has to be prohibited. In the scientific standard, a physical theory need be proven or disproven with experiment. “consensus” and “translation of language” are irrelevant.

Yin Zhu There are many well-established dogmas and myths in science. Some of them are related to questions about priorities. Historians of science are doing important work trying to restore justice.

But these are often difficult problems -- let's remember the dispute, the feud between Newton and Leibniz. Or Rosalind Franklin's role in discovering the structure of DNA. Nevertheless, priority issues play a secondary role for the development of science.

Lev Verkhovsky However, I cannot agree with you. In any case, we need respect the original worker. This is the basic ethic. And, the people need be blamed as who robbed or stole other’s scientific results, no matter how powerful this people is.

And, it is also important, we sentenced that, “the main reason for the death of physics is that the false statements are prevailing”.

It is clear wrong if one thinks that a subject of science can be developed as the false statements are prevailing.

I agree we need ethics and scientific standards as a minimum in high impact journals.

But standards are relative to consensus of the day. To determine the truth in physics is hard if not impossible. Much easier is to falsify a theory.

If we want absolute truth whether Navier Stokes equations have solutions other than in trivial cases we are in trouble because there is no general proof. That does not stop solving them numerically and design aircraft.

The places like Academia are forgiving and one can write anything.

No one should be stopped from exposing false claims so other people can judge.

We are people making mistakes but other people spot them.

Journals should not only publish their standard for authors to follow but it is more difficult to enforce them than to write.

In “What Is a Theory of Physics and How to Develop a New Theory of Physics?”(What Is a Theory of Physics and How to Develop a New Theory of Physics?[v1] | Preprints.org), I have a discussion about scientific falsification:

The function to invent new production determined that the science can be falsified automatically. If new production cannot be invented as a scientific hypothesis announced, this hypothesis shall be questioned or disproven.

But, now, in physics science, the cosmology, even including astronomy, is such a subject that cannot be used to invent new production. It is only a science to explain or to understand the observed object. It become highly analogous to the philosophy.

the falsification principle was directly given up in the Big Bang. First, in the 1920s, the Big Bang predicted that the universe should be 2 billion years old (Georges Lemaître).[31] It is clearly wrong. It is younger than the Earth. Second, in 1952, Walter Baade’s prediction is 3.6 billion years.[32] It is younger than the Sun. Third, the current prediction is 13.7 billion years.[33] But, the oldest star in the Milky Way is 15 billion years.[34] Now, it was presented that universe need be older than 27 billion years.[35] It is clear, in regulative scientific standard, the Big Bang was disproven very early. 3) because the conclusion cannot be obtained from observation, in current cosmology, the only way to obtain a conclusion is with mathematics derivation which is mainly based on the high-Dimensional space, the extra dimension and the Planck scale. Therefore, it is certain, these conclusions are that “lost in math”.

For your sentence, it is clear, in the scientific standard, Navier Stokes equations was automatically confirmed valid.

I repeat again: “the people need be blamed as who robbed or stole other’s scientific results, no matter how powerful this people is.”

Never. That would be fatal snd a principsl mistake.

Dear Yin Zhu

It is the non-local universe that creates everything. A scientist is just a really small part that exists a very short period during the evolution of the universe. I am afraid that you are over-emphasizing the human point of view. Think about the universe as a self generating enormous structure with basic properties. Actually, a self generating fractal.

With kind regards, Sydney

prohibiting would certainly be wrong. understanding , generally, is an evolutionary process, that should not be interrupted by prohibition.. second, what is false, is hard to decide.