Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by TonyYuan, Mar 29, 2023.
Which journals and can you provide links to the articles?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
For example: physics essays in Canada, GED in the United States
Although the paper was published, there were some mistakes in the paper, so I prefer ResearchGate:
Physics Essays is peer-reviewed but does not use that to screen what is published.
GED I have not heard of. Do you have a link?
Researchgate is a networking site for exchanging papers, so not peer-reviewed.
My compliments to exchemist. (and Janus58, and James R and the others replying to this thread). You guys have more patience than I could ever imagine. But I think you are on a hopeless mission. The scientific publishing community practices an extreme form of diplomacy. They will never tell a submitter they are a crackpot. Instead, they will reject the submission in the most polite way while saying something positive so as not to turn the submitter against science. This personal respectful treatment sometimes causes the crackpot to conclude it is their ideas that are worthy of respect.
GED: Galileo Electrodynamics, the current editor-in-chief is a professor of physics at MIT, and her major is SR. After she graduated with a Ph.D., she entered the Apollo moon landing project, but there let her know that they never believed in SR, GR, and they thought these were all wrong. In fact, the US moon landing project has never used any Einstein SR, GR. The editor-in-chief is already a good friend of mine, and we have had many discussions. Of course, this might upset some Einstein fans.
This is a letter from a Ph.D. in physics at MIT, a direct participant in the Apollo project:
Dear Tony Yuan,
Thank you so much for your May 9th story.
My own life story goes like this: I did a PhD thesis on SRT in the MIT physics department.
Then I went to MIT Draper Lab to find a permanent job.
They showed me the Sagnac effect as part of the guidance and control system of the Apollo program.
I see, they already know, the Sagnac effect is certain, SRT will definitely die!
When I showed this problem to my physics professor, he saw it too.
But Einstein was, and still is, the fundraising icon of physics.
So many physicists are still defending what is indefensible in SRT.
Engineers are better listeners. So do mathematicians.
We have a society here called the League of Natural Philosophy.
There may also be like-minded people in China.
I hope you can find them.
Dear Tony Yuan,
It's all very fascinating and I'm delighted to receive this letter.
My personal story is this: I was in high school when the Russians launched Sputnik.
My country woke up and started educating more male and female scientists. (Why America is strong)
I worked hard, got into MIT, and went there to study physics.
Along the way, I also did some chemistry and electrical engineering.
Eventually, I went to work at the Draper Lab, which was part of MIT at the time.
They showed me the Sagnac effect, which blew my mind. It threatens SRT!
Draper Lab helped put people safely on the moon, and Draper Lab didn't buy SRT.
Today I summarize the SRT questions as follows:
Light propagation is a problem with two boundaries: source and receiver.
Einstein chose one of these boundaries as his reference for the speed of light.
Had he been a more mature mathematician at the time, he would have involved two boundaries.
So far, though GRT is a bit more secure than SRT.
But I wouldn't be too surprised if you convinced me!
My personal experience is this: I did my entire education at MIT:
SB Physics, SM EE, PhD in Physics.
My doctoral thesis was about using quaternion algebra in SRT.
Then I got a job at Draper Lab, then part of the MIT Aero Dept.
There, they were working on the Apollo program to the moon.
Draper nobody believes in SRT. They are right!
SRT does have one big problem.
When I told my PhD thesis advisor, he apologized profusely!
He suspects that physics does have some big problems.
But he thinks at least SRT is safe!
Eventually, I had a good career, retired, and was asked to do my GED.
I didn't pay close attention to your efforts to overthrow Einstein's GRT because, in my opinion, the GRT is pointless.
But I encourage you to work hard to overthrow the GRT because it is the physics of politics not the physics of truth.
As much as I would like to help you, it is my duty to be unbiased and must leave the journal's general readership to pass judgment on the value and importance of what is published in Physics Papers.
However, I can help you with my suggestions. In order to promote your work, it is essential to contact experts in your field and let them know about your publication. However, this is not enough, these experts are usually very busy and only have time to read literature that confirms what they already think is correct or matches their ideas and knowledge. In short, you have to ask for their feedback and ask their opinion on your idea. While you will prioritize Chinese scientists, your aim should be the entire world.
In conclusion, you must send copies of your article to as many scientists as possible, you can easily do this by email, and ask to provide you with their comments, which you will seriously consider very useful for your future research Valuable. Not everyone will reply. If you manage to get a 1% response, consider it a huge success, as you can leverage this response to address it in a nested post, kickstarting a campaign that will trigger lots of comments and awareness for your future work.
My best regards.
I'm sure many of you know Tom van Flandern, a great astrophysicist. Here is a link to his paper: https://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
His paper can also be found on RG: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252555948_The_Speed_of_Gravity_--_What_the_Experiments_Say
His paper states very clearly that the speed of gravity must be much greater than the speed of light.
In fact, over the past few years, I have had discussions about gravity with many physics professors around the world. I noticed that GR and SR are very fragile theories, they cannot withstand logical scrutiny, and there are many contradictions in them. But Einstein's admirers describe GR and SR as the greatest and most beautiful theory in the world, which is very difficult to understand. But if it is a religion, then we can easily understand this phenomenon.
Center of mass vs. center of attraction.
Given two identical objects of 1 unit of mass each, located opposite each other on a 2 unit diameter circle.
The question is: with the pair in the x or y direction, where would a mass of 2 units be located to produce the same gravitational effect on the test object at s?
The tick marks x and y (.54 and -.24 units off center), show these locations. demonstrating that the gravitational effect depends on the distribution of matter.
In general, the center of attraction will not coincide with the center of mass. The sphere is one exception.
With objects aligned along x, as they rotate, the effective center of mass oscillates between x and y at 2x the orbital frequency. S could detect variations in gravitational effects with a highly sensitive instrument.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The poll you created with this thread is useless. General Relativity is a classical theory, so the two choices you have provided are not really any different from one another. Option 1 is correct: GR can explain gravitational waves and estimate their strength. Option 2 is just over-reach: who's to know if GR is the only theory that can explain gravitational waves? It does explain gravitational waves, but I'm sure there are many variants and some alternatives that also attempt to explain them. Any future quantum theory of gravity will have to be able to explain them. After all, we know they are real. We have detected them.
Easy claim to make; hard to support.
Show me one contradiction in SR or GR. Should be easy enough, if the theories are as fragile as you claim. Let's make it easier for you. Start with contradictions in SR. If that fails due to contradiction, as you claim, then GR should surely fail, too.
They are, physically and mathematically, very elegant theories. You'd need to know some maths to really appreciate it.
I see what you tried to do, there. Unfortunately for you, even if you can't understand it, the theory of relativity is science.
I really can't shake the position of the religion of relativity created by Einstein, not only me, but also the physics academicians of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Sciences, they can't shake it, but they all clearly realize that GR and SR are a kind of fallacy. I can provide a video of these people being interviewed by China Central Television in China. Among them, academician Shiing-Shen Chern has repeatedly expressed that Einstein's mathematics is very bad, and his theory is incorrect. Chern is Einstein's colleague at Princeton University. Einstein invited him to join GR research many times, but Chern refused, because Chern believed that GR is wrong, and he didn't want to cooperate with such a meaningless theory. In addition to Chen, there were several well-known professors at Princeton University who also believed that Einstein's work was meaningless.
I gave the video links, but they are all in Chinese. If you have friends who can speak Chinese, you can ask them to help translate into English.
清华大学天文物理教授，中国科学院院士，李惕碚(Professor of Astrophysics at Tsinghua University, Academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tipei Lee)
普林斯顿大学数学教授，美国科学院院士，陈省身(Professor of Mathematics at Princeton University, member of the American Academy of Sciences. Shiing-Shen Chern)
James R, I can often hear those GR believers in China say how beautiful GR is. Can you use your graceful GR to calculate the orbital data of each planet in the solar system? You should show the beauty of GR, not just talk about it.
James R, have you heard the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes"? You are exactly the same as the minister inside.
When Einstein was alive, he was almost mentally broken by his own stupid theories, but after his death, the GR believers stripped off his coat and put on the emperor's new clothes, Einstein became god. By now, followers of Einstein's religion have spread all over the world. GR is successful as a religion, but it is not science, and it should not take the place of science, which is the misfortune of mankind.
I asked you to show me one contradiction in SR or GR. But you haven't done that. Why not?
I got you. Similar to binary star systems, due to their rotation, the gravitational force received at s will change periodically. This change rule can be easily described by mathematics. And for s, the speed of this change is far greater than the speed of light. But these are not gravitational waves.
The change you described is simply the change of gravity due to the change of the position of the stars. You can do this experiment on the earth. You can measure the periodic changes of the sun and moon on the earth’s gravity. It’s not difficult. , as long as the precision of your instrument is high enough.
But these periodic changes are not gravitational waves!
You have yet to show a single example of fallacy. Can you draw on the work of any of these physics academicians you refer to, to find a single example of the fallacy you mention?
Or do you only have some opinions, unsupported by anything substantial?
If these academicians you mentioned could show that GR or SR is fatally flawed, why haven't they published their findings in the peer-reviewed literature, some time in the past 100 years?
Who's to say Chern wasn't wrong in his beliefs? Maybe Einstein was right and Chern was wrong. I haven't heard of Chern, but I've heard of Einstein. I wonder why that is.
This is the best you can do?
Obviously, GR can be used to calculate orbital data for the planets. If it was impossible, then we wouldn't have the confirmation of GR that is provided observations of things such as the advance of the perihelion of planetary orbits.
No, that would be you. You said you could show many fallacies of SR and GR, but you haven't come up with even a single one, so far.
Sounds like you're jealous Einstein got the attention you think you deserve.
I'm not convinced you know how to tell science from pseudoscience.
You are an expert in GR. Can you use GR to calculate the orbit data of each planet in the solar system? We are looking forward to your data, but you have not provided it, we have been waiting for several years.
GR is perfect, but you have been unable to use GR to calculate planetary orbit data. This is the best point of contradiction.
It surprises me that you don't know about Shiing-Shen Chern.
Mathematician James Simmons interview (Shiing-Shen Chern is one of the greatest mathematicians in the 20th world)
Maybe Chern is just a little guy compared to James R you.
Separate names with a comma.