This website is about my upcoming book
Book Title - "Toppling Relativity: My Struggle with the Church of Physics" (to be published in 2017). See Book Preview (or download Preview in PDF format)

Preview Chapter 1 of upcoming book to learn why an observer cannot catch up to light (Einstein had no explanation)!

Objective Science practiced here: If you are a relativity-worshipping physicist who may be offended by scientific facts that are not consistent with your religious worship then this website is not for you! If you are objective and willing to question foundations then this website is for you. This website states problems with the theoretical and experimental basis of Special Relativity: a Counterexample to Einstein’s derivation that Special Relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations and Observations that Quasars are not obeying Special Relativity's Time Dilation formula. Interesting parts below include documented responses of relativity-worshipping and fact-evading mainstream physicists, including Nobel Prize winners, when confronted with these scientific facts!

Mission Accomplished Relativity Toppled.
Here is the physics paper (in PDF Format).

My paper points out that Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Derivation was based on Unstated Assumptions, Invalidates that "Derivation" with an actual counter-example, and gives correct space and time equations. My paper also notes the Quasar Time Dilation Failure of Special Relativity, which experimental result the Church of Physics (Physics Establishment) had buried so well that even I, who keeps on top of experiments regarding relativity, found it out only by good fortune while looking for other information related to quasars. The paper suggests three other low-cost experiments will give results inconsistent with special relativity's predictions. If special relativity is wrong then general relativity, unfortunately, is also wrong. 2015 version of this paper has the same physics equations and related text as 2005 version (which was at my old website); the changes are regarding experiments mentioned, particularly the Quasar discovery which the Church and the cooperating media has hidden from the public.
Starting January 2005, my paper with the same space-time equations (but changes in text/sections between versions) was submitted to many journals, and rejected by all, mostly with no attempt to have the paper refereed or to address the merits of the paper. Details of reports by three Nobel prize winners writing as journal Editors/Referees below.

Hot! Preview Chapter 1 of book. What Einstein Never Knew – "how" and "why" do all observers always see speed of light to be the same. Chapter 1 explains "how" and "why" of Special Relativity's Light postulate!

Emails from Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft show blatant continued evasion that should make one question whether the confidence in Special Relativity arises from scientific methodology or from evasion of theoretical and experimental science (also includes correspondence with his two Relativity-Defending Internet Partners)

Evasive and/or Scornful Referee Reports for my physics paper written by two Nobel Prize winners.

Email Sent to above two Nobel Prize winners regarding Quasar Suppression and regarding the Evasive and/or Scornful Referee Reports they wrote; letter also issues open challenge to them and informs them of this upcoming book. Copy to various Physics Professors and others.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) unable to address the issue of Evasion by Physics journals.

John Baez, the greatest and most prolific crackpot

Why did Neal D. Walsch, author of the "Conversations with God" books trilogy have God confirm "General Theory of Relativity" as true?

Email sent to those teaching Special Relativity to correct two specific mistakes so as give students correct scientific information

Breakthrough Junior Prize Winning student, indoctrinated by relativity-worshippers, doles out false fact and teaches this to millions on Youtube "So the relativity of time is a natural conclusion if you just combine the speed equation with the fact that light travels at a constant speed."  Email to sent to those teaching Special Relativity and to Breakthrough Junior Prize officials

Cool! Twitter Jokes - check them out!

Where did Einstein go wrong?

The postulates of Special Relativity are correct.  However, Einstein followed this seemingly infallible logic: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there existed formulas by which distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers.

To understand why above logic was flawed one has to read the paper, here is the general reason:
Einstein's velocity addition is 'linear' just as a Newton's was. Einstein failed to abandon this flaw in of 'linear' thinking in Newton's laws and thus failed to get the right equations. Newton did not have any data that would suggest that light is not obeying classical velocity addition, so there was no reason for him to think beyond classical velocity addition. Einstein had the facts about the behavior of light but was unable to abandon the 'linear' thinking of classical physics, and built relativity on this continued and flawed 'linear' thinking. From p. 5 of our paper: "This (ux+ v) term denoting simple 'linear' addition appears in both Newtonian physics and relativity. In relativity (ux+ v) is not the speed of the object as seen by either observer but is still a linear velocity addition. In our theory velocity addition is not linear."

Where did Einstein go further wrong ?

Einstein founded relativity on the wrong Philosophy of Time.

Forget Special Relativity’s equations about time dilation, its claim about time itself being an independent physical quantity (its equations require this) is wrong. Our paper also shows how to build a clock that will not undergo any time dilation at all.

Physicists are wrong even about what "classical physics" (i.e.pre-Einstein physics) said about time, and failed to realize a key subtlety. Physics books widely state that in classical physics time was "absolute " by which they mean that is was an independent quantity that "flows" at a constant pace. Doesn’t matter what these books say, they are ALL wrong! No equation of classical physics implies any such thing about time, and if physics is equations then these writers failed to even understand Newton’s laws and equations, and what these equations imply about time. (They went for some Newton quotation from here and there, but those quotes are not physics, they are just secondary opinion with no physics to back it up. You can either go after the superfluous OR you can try to understand physics and what it implies; physics writers have unanimously chosen the former when it comes to Newtonian Physics and Time). Unfortunately and shockingly, Einstein, throughout his life, held the same wrong view that in "classical physics" "absolute time" "flow[s]" (quotes from pp. 186, 206 of the 1938 book, "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld).

Einstein’s physics and Einstein’s equations were the first time that physics was required to incorporate the claim that time "flows" as an actual independent physical quantity; this claim about time we consider to be highly questionable philosophically, and this was a major motivation in our finding alternative equations that are consistent with Einstein’s two postulates.

Below paragraph, taken unedited from p.6 of our
paper, gives the actual situation about classical and relativistic time:
While doing away with the concept of "absolute time," relativity presented a new thesis of "relative time flow" between inertial frames. We do not take the absolute time of Newtonian physics to have meant that time itself "flows" as an independent physical quantity – it only meant that the equations worked in such a way that all observers measured the same time for the same event. We could attempt to make a similar statement about observers in different frames and relativity's relative time – however, in relativity time is an independent physical quantity and we have actual time dilation.

Can all these physics professors not read my paper and objectively evaluate?
First
we must understand how physics traditionally works:
Quote from Max Planck (and after my experience, I fully endorse this statement): "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
So physics and science has this general problem of scientists sticking
to wrong scientific beliefs and not admitting that they are wrong despite the objective evidence.
Second we must understand that today's physics authorities are worshippers and suppressors, breaking from predecessors who shunned such behavior:
To most of today's professional physicists
Special Relativity is a religion. Why do they evade and not confront matters? Relativity-worshippers behave the same  way that religious  zealots and fundamentalists behave when confronted with scientific facts that go against their religion. While traditional religions to do not have the power to suppress science,  worshippers of relativity have scientific power and are suppressing science truths. Today's physics authorities are the worst kind of anti-science religious crackpots, and shame on them!

In fact none of the professors at the Church of Physics will  plainly even answer this question (10 years of refusal): Does the paper give a counter-example to Einstein's derivation that Special Relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations? These physicists have only religiously memorized and never tried to challenge or refute foundations, so they cannot address such questions about foundations. These mediocre minds are seemingly incapable (more due to lack of intellectual courage than lack of intellectual ability) of examining Einstein's 1905 derivation and its unstated assumptions.  But they are not powerless; they are masters of public relations and their inability to address shortcomings in the physics they religiously worship is more than compensated by their control of media and ability to suppress the scientific shortcomings of their religion. We live in a special time in physics history because never before has there been such authoritarian religious worship of a theory and suppression of facts against it.  Max Planck and colleagues were never worshippers and suppressors.

History will judge that any competent independently-thinking physicist could have read this paper and seen its technical correctness; that no one in physics is available to do this is further evidence that physicists today indeed are a Church of relativity-worshipping crackpots. They lie when they say that Special Relativity and/or General Relativity has passed all experiments. Actually most of the physics professors do not even lie when they talk of experiments and special/general relativity. Like most amateur crackpots, these professional crackpots don't have true physics knowledge. But the reason for these professors' lack of knowledge is that they are devout relativity worshippers who have full faith that it is truth, based on what they have been taught by Church authorities. These professional crackpots do  not want to waste time learning about experimental or other legitimate problems with relativity that would make them doubt their own faith and take their time away from the rewards and recognition the Church secures for them for faithfully building on the holy truth. Further, they are aware that, as in any church, questioning the faith the church is founded on is career-suicide. One has freedom to question much in physics (as evidenced by publications), but questioning the foundations of relativity is blasphemy.

The Nature of Science is variable and depends on those who rule in the field at the time. A "brutal intellectual dictatorship" can rise to power in a science field what they have believed all their lives is what is declared to be objective truth, and only those who salute to their beliefs have a future in the field. There may be many other contributing factors that have led to today's physics situation of the rise of an authoritarian relativity-worshipping church and departure from objectivity; one must examine "conformity experiments", groupthink phenomenon, blind respect for authority, need for religion-like dogma; need for a secure foundation that one can build on, safety and security in conforming,  etc. These factors are similar to such situations arising in non-science situations; science is a very human field subject to all these factors. 
Max Planck's above quote about physicists may have exceptions, I am trying to find such physicists.

The continuing dream: Fall of the Relativity-worshipping Church and the reemergence of physics as an authority-challenging and objective science.

Book Preview

(This book is to be published in 2017. Below Introduction, Chapter Names, and Chapter Content preview are subject to revision, of course. The actual book will be as published, this preview is of current draft.)
Toppling Relativity: My Struggle with the Church of Physics
Mission Accomplished - Relativity Toppled
Go to Chapters Preview or Download Chapters Preview - PDF
Introduction: Why this book
Physics Establishment today is a Relativity worshipping, Truth Suppressing Church that is indoctrinating students with beliefs which this Church knows, or should know, to be false.

Special and General Relativity’s Time Dilation does not work for all Clock Mechanisms and thus is not actual Time Dilation at all. Church of Physics is Suppressing Observed Failure of Special Relativity’s Time Dilation in Quasar Observations and Has Been Using Selective Clock Mechanisms for its Verification of Time Dilation. Media, under control of this Church, reports every experimental success of relativity worldwide but has not reported the Quasar failure.

Special Relativity is the greatest scripture of this new Church. Indeed, the Church is aware of the truth of Einstein’s quote that "a single experiment can prove me wrong," and saving Special Relativity by any means necessary has been the prime directive of the Church. General Relativity is founded on Special Relativity being correct.

The postulates of Special Relativity are correct. However, Einstein’s Derivation that the constancy of speed of light necessarily requires that time dilate and length contract – a part of all College Level modern physics texts – is wrong. The Church of Physics has chosen to suppress this and continue teaching what they know is wrong. A counter-example is a definitive way to show a derivation is not a derivation at all. A valid counter-example to Einstein's derivation has been achieved and, in ten years of correspondence, no physics journal editor has been able to provide a referee report stating that it hasn't! But being a Church journal the editor cannot publish what goes against the holiest and most worshipped in modern physics.

New low cost experiments can today further demonstrate that Special Relativity is wrong but the powerful relativity worshipping Church will not let such experiments be done.

This book further details that much of what is published in Physics Journals is not science but is Church of Physics dogmatic nonsense where the Church secures massive funds for those who build on previous Church writings. The Church of Physics reserves its greatest applause and decorations for the most devout relativity worshippers who prove their holiness by spending their lives building on relativity. Questioning the foundations of relativity is blasphemy to journal editors and career-suicide in physics.

How does the Church of Physics compare to other churches? Comparing to current Vatican authorities, the relativity worshipping Church of Physics authorities are far more dogmatic regarding protecting their beliefs in Special Relativity and shielding their believers from objective and documented scientific truths; dismissal without specifics is their mode of operation against scientific reality that goes against their dogmas.

Even physics internet forums have moderators everywhere – lower level physics authorities – who see that written responses from physics Nobel Prize winners, who would have loved to defeat this open challenge, have been nothing more then evasion. They understand that their Relativity worshipping Church is under attack by objective science and fall in line and immediately adopt the suppression methodology of their Church by banning this website.

The people who ran the old Church during the Galileo affair showed substantial scientific and intellectual honesty, along with openness to allowing publication of a sun-centric hypothesis that contradicted their worshipped earth-centric scriptures. The Church did not want to automatically ban and suppress this alternative hypotheses. The church insisted on noting that there was no "proof" that the Earth moves so any claims that it does can only be a hypotheses and not fact. Motion of Venus or other planets having moons, observed via telescope, were not evidence that Earth moves. The antagonism and resulting ban arose over Galileo's insistence that the matter that the Earth moves was settled as fact, citing his (wrong) conclusion that tides result from earth being in motion. However, at the inquisition, scientific considerations were pushed aside and the Church authorities cited the scriptures and on that authority pronounced sentence for proposing that "which is false and contrary to the scriptures." 

In Part III we will do a detailed comparison of the behavior of the Church of Physics to the old Church in its time of power. In today’s Church of Physics the authorities are resorting to suppression and censorship to save their worshipped Relativity. Today's Church of Physics is far more dogmatic in its worship of Relativity and its scientific decisions lose all sense of ethics when it comes to possibility of their worshipped equations being overthrown. They automatically ban such challenges by closing all means of publication. Compared to their relatively liberal predecessors at the old Church, the priests of the Church of Physics are militant zealots and fundamentalists when it comes to Relativity. This new church's suppression methodologies are sophisticated and smooth compared to those of the old church; the latter's handling of the Galileo affair was mediocre and amateurish  in matters of Media Control and Public Relations, whereas the new Church has shown itself to excel at these methodologies.

The Church of Physics is all about authoritarianism, dogma, big money, media control, and suppression, with no moral compass and no interest in the pursuit of logic or truth that goes against their religious foundational physics. What has lead to this Church's adoption of suppression as their leading methodology is the success that seasoned relativity worshippers have achieved in dismissing all who challenge their faith,  including those who use proper and rigorous scientific methodology, to be crackpots. Physics authorities have proved to be masters of public relations and have been very successful at fooling students, professors, teachers, and the general public into not questioning the "objective" pedestal that the Church of Physics has given to itself. In fact, almost all professors and teachers of Special Relativity can testify that in all these years they had no idea of questions regarding theoretical basis (counterexample) or experimental basis (quasar failure) of Special Relativity; this can serve as further objective documentation that Church of Physics authorities like to keep their professors/teachers ignorant of objective scientific truths. But there is no one to document such objective facts because the Church of Physics and what they worship is deemed to be objective Science, and those who are not worshipping with this Church have no scientific credibility .

We live in a special time in physics history because never before has there been such authoritarian religious worship of a theory and suppression of facts against it.

Our continuing dream: fall of the Relativity worshipping Church and the reemergence of physics as an authority-challenging and objective Science.

Public officials disbursing tax-payer money should be held accountable for blindly and irresponsibly giving to this Church masquerading as objective science. More and more university physics departments have a "Give to [University-Name] Physics." These should be re-stated as "Give to Church of Physics" because people do not realize that they are not giving to Physics but to a Church of relativity worshippers who will use such contributions to indoctrinate students into joining their pursuit of authoritarian religious worship of relativity and of suppression of scientific facts against it.


CHAPTERS

Copyrighted Material Website: ChurchofPhysics.org
Contact Ashish Sirohi, as@churchofphysics.org
PART I: SOLVING THE MYSTERY OF THE MOTION OF LIGHT AND ENDING SO-CALLED SPACETIME OF RELATIVITY; A REVIEW OF SOME OTHER ACCEPTED ANSWERS IN PHYSICS
  1. Back to 1905:  Solving the Mystery of the Motion of Light & Explaining Why Observers Cannot Catch up to Light. Using this Solution to Find the Correct Equations of Space and Time That Would Displace the Spacetime of Albert Einstein

    Chapter Preview Available:
    Back to 1905: Solving the Mystery of the Motion of Light & Explaining Why Observers Cannot Catch up to Light
  2. Foundations of the Spacetime Equations of Special Relativity: Einstein's Derivation from the Postulates was Based on Unstated and Wrong Assumptions, and Thus Was Not a Derivation at All

    Chapter Preview Available:
    What Unstated Assumptions did Einstein make that makes his Derivation of the Lorentz transformations not valid?
  3. Experimental Failure of Special Relativity, and Low-cost Experiments That Can Create More Failures

    Chapter Preview Available:
    Experimental Failure of Special Relativity, and Low-cost Experiments That Can Create More Failures (very brief - individual experimental details and background to be added)
  4. Explaining the Continuous Triumphant Experimental Verifications of Relativity’s Time Dilation: Illogic of Experimental Conclusions Illustrated by the Story of Holy Equations of Fictional Planet Venuts, Where its Militant Church of Physics Used the Differentiation of Experimental Verification to Become the Leading Religion

    Chapter Preview Available:
    Experimental Physics of Planet Venuts: Discovery of Time Dilation becomes the foundation of Holy Equations

    Church of Physics in Power on Venuts: Its Task of Maintaining the Holy Equations as Truth by Suppression of Conflicting Experimental Results, Control Over Which Experiments are Performed in Future, and Subjective Interpretations of Experimental Data Leading to Pre-determined Conclusions

    How the Church of Physics Came to Power on Venuts: Victory of the concept of Experimentally Verified Religion
  1. Experimental  Failures of General Relativity, and an examination of its claimed successes
  2. The Mystery of Gravity
  3. The Mystery of Quantum Mechanics
  4. What Was Considered Nothing Turns Out to be the Most Powerful Physical Entity: Empty Space
  5. Why Was Physics Not Enough for the Universe? The Mystery of Emergence of Life
  6. In Science Unjustified and Subjective Starting Assumptions Can Cause All That Follows – Including Choice of Experiments and Resulting Experimental Verifications – To Be Wrong Conclusions
  7. What Is the Universe and What Is Life? And Why the Answer Could Suggest That Scientists Might Never Be Able to Create Either

PART II: THE METHODOLOGIES OF THE CHURCH OF PHYSICS
  1. The Rise of the Church of Physics: Special Relativity Becomes a Religion
  2. Church of Physics on the March: General Relativity and Cosmology as New Triumph
  3. The Church of Physics Subverts Peer Review to Remove Objectivity: Worship With Us and Experience Heaven on Earth, Challenge Us and Go to Hell
  4. Church of Physics Subverts Experimentation to Remove Objectivity: Making Pre-Determined and Unjustified Conclusions from Experiments and Observational Data, False Propaganda of Experimental Verification, Suppression of Inconvenient Experimental Results, and Avoidance of Experiments that Could Give Unwelcome Results
  5. Media Control Methodology of the Church of Physics: Keep Out Views of Those Who Would Question the Validity of Their Claims by Denouncing Them as Crackpots
  6. Quantum Gravity Emerges as a New Mathematically-Complicated Pursuit for Relativity Worshipping Church of Physics Crackpot Professors
  7. The Journals of the Church of "Priests Impressing Each Other With Abstruse Mathematics and Calling it Physics" Publish Utter Nonsense – "Holes" In Space, Time Travel Methodologies, Weird Hidden Dimensions, and Almost-Finished "Theory of Everything" – and Why All This, With Relativity’s Equations Being Wrong, Can Be Actually Recognized to be Nonsense by All Objective Scientists
  8. The Cosmology of the Priests of the Church of Physics
  9. Church of Physics Resorts to Desperate Miracles – Creates Dark Matter to Save Relativity and Starts "Research" to Prove it is Real
  10. Militant Atheism as the Religious Agenda of the Church of Physics – Reject the Belief in God Because We Have Shown That Books of the God-Believing Churches Have Errors and Join Our  atheist Church
  11. War Between the Churches – Terrified of God-Believing Churches Being Able to Use the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Church of Physics Embraces Multiverse and Starts "Research" to Detect These Other Universes
  12. Kindergarten Philosophers of the Church of Physics Address the Bigger Issues of Life and Consciousness, Purpose of Existence, Good and Evil
  13. The Greatest Bubble in Science History Compared with Speculative Manias in History of Financial and Other Non-Religious Fields: The Common Thread of Highly Invested Powerful Authorities and Media Working Together to Fool the World



PART III: ESTABLISHING A FUTURE BEYOND THE CHURCH OF PHYSICS
  1. The Continuing Dream: Fall of the Relativity Worshipping Church and the Reemergence of Physics as an Authority-Challenging and Objective Science
  2. The Nature of Science, which includes the Methodology of Science, Is Variable and Depends On Those Who Rule In the Field At the Time
  3. Saving the Future: Solutions to Reducing the Variability of the Nature of Science So as to Make it Harder for a Take-Over by Another Faith-Based and Suppression-Based Group That Banishes Objectivity and Makes Science a Vehicle to Worship Their Cherished Beliefs


    Copyrighted Material Website: ChurchofPhysics.org
    Contact Ashish Sirohi, as@churchofphysics.org
Preview of Chapter 1. Back to 1905:  Solving the Mystery of the Motion of Light & Explaining Why Observers Cannot Catch up to Light

We visit Albert Einstein's famous 1905 Special Theory of Relativity which modified the space and time of Newtonian physics. Modern physics has since been built to be consistent with special relativity. We solve the mystery of the motion of light and from this solution a new theory emerges which challenges that of Einstein. Our theory also serves to show that Einstein's arguments, using which he derived his major physics conclusions, were based on unstated assumptions and therefore not a valid path to his conclusions.

Let us start with some basics, and then quickly get to the matter of the motion of light.

In physics, for any observer we can assign a frame of reference. As an example, for a person standing on the road, the road is the frame of reference and the person will make measurements relative to the road. For a person in a car moving on the road, the car will be the frame of reference and the person standing on the road will be moving in the car's frame of reference but persons sitting in the car will be at rest in the car's frame.

Special Relativity considers two observers who are at rest in their inertial frames of reference. Inertial frames move at constant velocity with respect to each other. If there was acceleration between these frames they would not be inertial frames of reference. We take the term inertial frames exactly as defined in special relativity, and so we need not address here any further any technicalities of what an inertial frame is.

Special relativity dramatically broke from classical (i.e. Galilean-Newtonian) physics because of below postulate.

Light postulate: The speed of light has the same value in space in all inertial frames of reference.

The speed of light is denoted by c and in space  the speed is approximately 300,000 km/s. At this speed you could circle the Earth 7.5 times in one second, so it is very fast compared to speeds we are used to travelling at. Light takes about 8 minutes to reach from the Sun to the Earth. However, looking at the vast universe the speed of light is not as high as many would like it to be; it would take light over 4 years to cover the distance to the nearest star.

The other postulate of special relativity was nothing new and states what was already known from Galilean-Newtonian physics: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

The experimental evidence for the light postulate is overwhelming, and there are no credible experimental results against it.  What is dramatic about the light postulate is that it contradicts "Galilean Relativity" of classical physics.

Let us first review this part of classical physics. As we know velocity is just speed with direction specified, so for our purposes of discussion we can interchange one for other.

We consider two cars moving on the road. Commonly, when we say a car is moving at a certain speed we refer to its speed relative to the road, and that is what we mean here. We can skip the units of speed. One car is moving at 30 and other at 20 in the same direction as shown. We refer to the occupants of the cars as You and Other.

You are going to the right at u=20. Other is going to right at v=30.

According to classical physics, You will see the Other car going to the right at v'= v – u = 30 – 20 = 10 relative to you. And, of course, this classical velocity addition makes perfect sense from experience because Other is 10 faster than You. But to make the light postulate hold true, it can be shown that all velocity additions have to change, so this answer of 10 is not perfectly accurate, but at speeds much slower than light the error is miniscule.

Now suppose You are going to the right at 0.9 times the speed of light, u = 0.9c, and the Other you are observing is Light, v=c.

Then by classical physics You would see Light going at v' = v – u = 1c – 0.9c = 0.1c relative to you i.e. light will be faster than you by 0.1 c. But according to above light postulate of special relativity all observers always see the speed of light to be the same. That means, no matter speed what You are moving at, you will see light to be moving to the right at 1c. Even if You increase your speed to, say, 0.999999c, you will observe light to be travelling at 1c. So classical physics and the "common sense" expectation that you would be catching up to light and therefore would see light at 0.1c is wrong!

How did Einstein explain this strange situation? How can an observer's speed not matter when you are looking at light? Einstein had no explanation, no mechanism, and no details of what makes this happen. But he never sought an answer to such queries and simply assumed this and called it a postulate. It often is the situation is physics that we have discovered something we can experimentally confirm, and that is where the physics of the situation ends. If one could answer further "how" and "why" something holds true then that could be new physics.

We actually give below the "how" and "why" which Einstein not was able to provide, and that does lead to new physics; in fact, it leads to new equations which are different from and contradict those that Einstein found. To understand our answer to the "how" and "why" of the light postulate let us detour back to classical physics – forgetting about special relativity – for a moment only.

Special relativity also says (correctly) that no mass can travel faster than speed of light. So we absolutely need to announce that we are taking a momentary hypothetical detour from special relativity only for the purpose of visiting the concept of infinity.

In mathematics, when you add or subtract a finite number from you still get . For example, - 4700000 = and + 99999999999999 = ∞.

Then applying this rule of mathematics to below diagram, no matter how fast a finite speed You have, you will always see Other travel at .

In above v' = v – u= - 9000000= . The answer, in classical physics, would be whether you had u = 9000000 or u = 99999999999999 or any other finite value.

So, in classical physics:
When You, the observer, are looking at an object travelling at , your own (finite) speed does not matter. You will always see that object travel at .

Compare to special relativity:
When You, the observer, are looking at light, which travels at c in empty space, your own (less than c) speed does not matter. You will always see light travel at c.

In relativity, light is behaving the way an object moving at infinite velocity would in classical physics, in that the speed of the observer does not matter. For light to so behave there should, in our view, be a hidden infinity in the mathematics of relativity which corresponds to the speed of light. We parted from Einstein and actually found this hidden infinity in the mathematics of velocity addition.

In physics we have the famous notions of "quantum jump" and "discreteness." These come from quantum mechanics, where at small scales things are not continuous but "grainy." Many physicists have been suggesting a lattice structure for space, or some other way whereby space takes on a discrete character. But giving space such structures would not explain "how" and "why" of the light postulate and tell us where the hidden infinity in the mathematics of the motion of light is which causes the speed of the observer to not matter.

In classical physics and in the theory of relativity all motion is continuous. In our theory we abandon continuous motion for mass and thereby unite relativity with the discrete nature of quantum mechanics. However, very importantly, we hold on to light having continuous motion. Mass moves through space discretely, "jumping" from one point to another without passing through the points in between. On the other hand, the motion of light through space is continuous.  In fact our paper was called "Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light."

For mass travelling at constant velocity the "length jumped" is constant. The higher the velocity the more the number of jumps per unit time and the smaller this jump length. These jump lengths are all very small. They match the length scales we see in quantum mechanics, which are of atomic length and smaller. At the quantum scale a fundamental length is called the Planck length, after physicist Max Planck, and it is 10-35 m (which is a decimal point followed by 34 zeros and then 1).

Now let us look at a stretch of space that mass and light are moving through. In a unit time a point mass particle moving at constant velocity will be at a finite number of points and have made a finite number of jumps; in this time light will travel continuously over all points in its path and effectively have made an infinite number of jumps. Thus we have the hidden infinity we needed.

In our theory, addition of velocities depends on adding (or subtracting) the number of jumps per unit time. The number of jumps per unit time is infinite () for light and finite for an observer having mass. When an observer looks at light, addition and subtraction will involve adding or subtracting a finite number from and the result will still be . Thus the speed of the observer will not matter and that is what explains the light postulate.

Let us actually go further into the mathematics – all of which is elementary – and show how this works. We will show precisely why the light postulate holds true. Given what we are achieving do follow the simple math. (If you want to not join us in this then skip the below paragraphs having mathematical notations and continue reading after that. Understanding of this mathematics is not needed to read the other chapters).

In a unit time a mass particle with constant velocity would have made N jumps. N need not, of course, be a whole number (what that means is that if, say, a particle makes 10 jumps in 4 seconds then we say N=2.5 jumps per second, but the particle makes whole jumps only). Each jump length is Ld where L is a length that is a constant for space and d is a function of N. (A function is a formula and, while one can see our paper for the formula, it is not needed for our purposes here). We can think of d as a function that causes "shrinkage" of the jump length. The distance the particle travels in unit time is v = NLd, which comes from multiplying the jumps per unit time N by the length of each jump Ld. For simplicity we can take L = 1 and have v=Nd (but if we use the shorter formula for v must keep in mind the L=1 or we will be missing the distance unit from the formula). Note that since d is function of N it would mean v itself is a function of N. Every velocity v corresponds to a N.  Our formula for velocity v is such that as v of the mass particle increases, N gets larger, but d decreases in such as way that v approaches speed of light, c, but never crosses c. So that also explains why no mass can travel faster than c.

For light, as explained above, continuous motion means N = ∞, and we have jump length d=0.

Mathematically, the actual product of and 0 is deemed to be indeterminate, which here would mean it can be any number. However, for motion in space this indeterminate is fixed and we have 0 = c. All continuous motion in space is at this speed.

In our theory, addition of velocities depends on converting the velocities to number of jumps per unit time, adding (or subtracting) these number of jumps per unit time, and then converting the result back to velocity. All this is done using formulas we have found. Let us apply the method to You as an observer viewing Light. As in earlier example, we again take Your speed to be u = 0.9c and for Light we have v = c. Corresponding to them we have jumps per unit time Nu and Nv, where Nu would be a "finite value" (which we can calculate using our formula) whereas Nv = . In classical physics we add or subtract velocities v and u directly. Here we add or subtract the N's. For case when You are observing light we have Nv'= Nv - Nu = - "finite value" = . From Nv' = we will get d'= 0 and and from our formula, with these values of Nv' and d' we get velocity v' = Nv' d'= 0 = c. This explains the light postulate.

Infinity "naturally" occurs in many places in physics and we have embraced it and gotten the light postulate. However, infinity has traditionally been considered an enemy by physicists. Physics dogma teaches that infinity should be avoided, and if that is not possible, then it is to be confronted and eliminated. So physicists would never do what we did above by seeking out and working with . Thus they could never explain the light postulate and simply assumed it.  Physicists have been avoiding or fighting infinity for a hundred years and the methodologies that have been laid out for future physicists seem to have put physics on course to continue avoiding infinity for another hundred years.

Another dogma in physics is to put distance and time as primary physical quantities, with velocity (speed) derived from them. This comes from dimensional analysis which is taught as a foundation to physics students. In line with this, Einstein was focusing on obtaining distance and time equations. But the fundamental fact of relativity is that all observers see light at the same speed, no matter what the observer’s own speed. Given that this physics truth, which forms the starting point of relativity, is about velocity we found it natural to examine velocity directly.

Starting with velocity is our deliberate approach for another reason too. When looking at moving objects we can directly observe velocity and directly observe distance travelled. We can actually see how fast something is going and from which point to which point it is moving. Time, however, is subtle and elusive in that time "flow" cannot be directly observed, unlike velocity and distance. For us, in that sense too we would rather have velocity and not time as the quantity we prefer to work with as a starting point. This simple realization worked wonders. In fact we never needed to assume the light postulate, since by going directly to velocity we have above shown how it is that all observers measure the same speed of light. Having gotten equations for velocity we use them to then get equations for distance and time.

Einstein's equations of special relativity are called the Lorentz Transformations, after physicist Hendrik Lorentz who first stated them. From our equations of velocity, we derive equations for distance and time. Of course, because our equations of velocity addition are different from Einstein's, our distance-time equations also come out be different from the Lorentz transformations. We got the correct equations using velocity as a starting point for the equations and Einstein got the Lorentz transformations by choosing to go directly to distance and time, and then from those equations coming to equations of velocity addition.

However, for momentum we get the same effective formula as Einstein’s and this also results in the same energy formulas. So that part is common between the theories.  Using his interpretation of special relativity Stephen Hawking says, in A Brief History Of Time: "As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises ever more quickly" [ ]. Brian Greene similarly states in The Elegant Universe that mass of a particle "increases without limit as its speed approaches that of light" [ ]. We never agreed with such interpretations of Einstein's formula. We note that for momentum we get the "same effective formula as Einstein’s," the "effective" word being important because the formula is not exactly the same.  We are glad that there is no possibility of interpreting our formula to suggest that mass is actually changing with velocity.

Time dilation and Length contraction are two major predictions resulting from the Lorentz transformations.

Physics books and papers repeatedly state that time dilation has been experimentally confirmed. Despite what physicists think and claim, time dilation that time itself dilates has never been shown to be true; to show it to be true we need to simultaneously test it across multiple clock mechanisms and that has not been done. Clocks are mechanisms that are affected by motion, gravity and other forces so they show different times when these differ. Special relativity has a time dilation formula that applies between the inertial frames of the two observers. Using this formula, the ratio of time rates between clocks in the two inertial frames is computed from the relative velocity between the frames. In special relativity the ratio between the time measured by observers in these two frames will have this same computed value, no matter what the clock mechanism or the event being measured. So to confirm this we need to simultaneously test with different clock mechanisms. (See chapter 4 for interesting anecdotes). Our equations also lead to different time measurements by observers. However, unlike special relativity, in our theory, the ratio between the time measured by the two observers takes into account the mechanics of the event being measured. In our theory different clock mechanisms observed by the same two observers could give different time ratios.

Length contraction has not been experimentally tested at all. In our theory length of an object remains invariant, and there is no length contraction. We consider length contraction to be one of the strangest claims in the history of physics, and we have always felt that special relativity came with an expiry date because the day length contraction claim is experimentally tested would be the day this theory falls. What is special relativity's length contraction? From the Lorentz transformations it follows that length of an object moving relative to you contracts parallel to the direction of motion. Suppose Other and You both have a measuring stick of same length. Other gets into a very fast vehicle and zooms past You; assume that both sticks are aligned parallel to Other's direction of motion. As Other passes You, you will notice that Other's stick is shorter. At v = 0.866c Other's stick would have contracted to half the length of your stick. It is not just the stick, Other's vehicle and everything in it will all contract parallel to the direction of motion. And, of course, this happens all the time as people move relative to each other, except that the contraction is so small at everyday speeds that you cannot observe it.

In chapter 3 we examine experiments that can differentiate between the theories and can show relativity to be wrong; we include a suggestion on how to test length contraction.

We have noted in path to the Lorentz transformations Einstein chose to avoid infinity and chose to start with distance and time. Einstein followed two other paths which we consider erroneous. These two other erroneous paths were adopting the linear thinking of Newtonian physics and also adopting the wrong philosophy of time based on a possible misunderstanding of time in Newtonian physics. We discuss these further in the next chapter.

So, by our equations, have we shown Einstein's relativity equations to be wrong? No, only experiments can do that. However, what we have done, without experiments, is to give a counterexample to Einstein's claim that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead only to his equations of special relativity. Einstein's famous 1905 paper had a "derivation" that showed how the postulates necessarily led to the Lorentz Transformations. Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformations from the postulates was based on unstated assumptions, and thus was not a derivation at all. That derivation is widely accepted and celebrated. Following Einstein's thinking, various derivations of the Lorentz transformations have since been published, and this link between the postulates and the transformations is a cornerstone of relativity. This derivation is taught as part of a standard college course in modern physics. Reputable physics textbooks derive the Lorentz transformations, in a claimed mathematically rigorous manner. Numerous physics papers that review or discuss relativity similarly accept that the Lorentz transformations can be derived from the postulates; popular books and articles on the subject repeat this claim.

Einstein's derivation meant that it has been mathematically and rigorously shown that A (the postulates) necessarily implies B (the Lorentz transformations). Physicists have studied and checked this derivation thoroughly for over a 100 years. But, as philosopher Thomas Kuhn noted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, physicists normally strive to preserve rather than try to refute their foundational theories; so it should not be surprising that all of them would find the derivation to be correct. It is this "derivation" which we have shown to have been based on unstated assumptions and thus not a valid derivation. We have achieved this because we found a counterexample C (our new equations) that shows that A does not necessarily imply B but can equally well imply C.  

We are not questioning that the postulates of special relativity are correct, and in fact we are in full agreement with them, having actually explained the light postulate. We are questioning the Lorentz transformations. There are two issues to be decided:
(1) Whether, by having a counterexample, we have shown that Einstein's derivation was invalid. Three Nobel Prize winners and others have reviewed this counterexample and none have been able to state that we do not have a counterexample. But physics authorities do not like that we have succeeded in showing that Einstein's derivation was invalid – in fact they do not like it at all!
(2) Whether B (Lorentz Transformations) or C (the Equations we found) are the correct space and time equations. These two sets of equations make different experimental predictions and experiments are the way to show that relativity is wrong and that Lorentz transformations are not reality. In chapter 3 we specify low-cost experiments which can be performed to show that relativity is wrong.

Again, Einstein's derivation being wrong does not automatically mean that Lorentz transformations are not the correct equations of nature.

We have shown that Einstein did not have a derivation of the Lorentz transformations, and we believe physics professors should therefore stop teaching that "derivation" as part of their standard modern physics course. In fact we emailed many professors asking them to stop teaching the derivation because it is not a derivation at all. It was our suggestion that when they teach the Lorentz transformations they should skip the derivation part since one "cannot logically or ethically teach a derivation to which a counterexample exists." But, in physics, as in religion, just because something is factually incorrect does not mean the proponents will stop teaching it as true.  Physics is run by authorities and is not a democracy, and physics professors teach what the authorities have dictated to be taught to students. Today's high priests of physics will not allow a refutation of special relativity, and professors do not seem to be bold enough to discuss the objectivity and judgment of those in power. They cannot challenge the wishes of today's physics authorities regarding special relativity, even when armed with a counterexample to Einstein's derivation. That Einstein's derivation is scientifically not correct is seemingly not a good enough reason for physicists to challenge authorities and not to teach the derivation to students. Looking for potential whistle-blowers who can tell their physics departments that they will not teach an incorrect derivation has been futile.

Special relativity is experimentally vulnerable. Einstein noted that "a single experiment can prove me wrong." The Quasar Time Dilation Failure of special relativity [ ] is an experimental failure that professors in classrooms never mention when they indoctrinate their students with the belief that special relativity has passed all experimental tests. Actually most professors who teach special relativity would not even know about such failure of relativity. It is a result that the physics authorities have suppressed so well that even I, who keeps on top of experiments regarding relativity, found it out only by good fortune while looking for other information related to quasars.

In physics when a new theory has the old theory as a limiting case there is a smooth transition. For example, as speeds fall lower to being much less than speed of light, special relativity's Lorentz transformations give results increasingly close to Galilean-Newtonian physics , so Galilean-Newtonian physics is a limiting case. Our equations are also such that Galilean-Newtonian physics is a limiting case.

But there is a clash between our equations and the Lorentz transformations in that neither is a limiting case of the other. If our equations are right, this would make things very bad for physicists who have unquestioningly built on the Lorentz transformations for over a 100 years. There would be no smooth transition.

How bad can things be if special relativity is wrong? Let us look at the parts of special relativity. One is the postulates, and another part is the Lorentz transformations. Much of modern physics is built on postulates being correct and that part is not affected; however, much of modern physics is also built on explicitly assuming the Lorentz transformations to be true. For that part there would be a big problem. The Lorentz transformations are the basis for the new spacetime that replaced that of Newtonian physics, so special relativity's spacetime is history if they do not hold true. For momentum we get the same effective formula as special relativity and this also results in the same energy formulas, so that part survives.

But there is another looming problem based on the other relativity the wide adoption of Einstein's theory of gravitation, General relativity, in recent decades. General relativity's "curved" spacetime is founded on the spacetime of special relativity. Physics authorities truly admire general relativity's spacetime and its mathematics, and have been justifying their faith claiming experimental successes of general relativity. In this book we also devote a further chapter to general relativity and additional problems with its assumptions and foundations (besides its being based on special relativity). We will show how meager, and far from definitive, general relativity's experimental successes have been and go through the history of how these have been hyped, while suppressing its grand failure. We also go into detailed examination of the loose ends of one major recent experimental claim. One of the implications of the Lorentz transformations being wrong would be that general relativity, unfortunately, would also be foundationally wrong.

Quantum mechanics is a theory which is very successful at explaining the behavior of matter and light at the atomic and subatomic scale. General relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and we believe this is because relativity's spacetime is not reality. That, we believe, is the message from the incompatibility, and the resolution is to replace relativity entirely, starting with the Lorentz transformations. But that is not the opinion of physicists in power! Quantum gravity attempts to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity (gravity), and thus the name. Quantum gravity has become the great physics challenge of recent decades, with String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity as the leading approaches.

Another big field that has emerged is cosmology, which is almost entirely based on general relativity being true. Quantum gravity and cosmology theories would become a wasteland if the Lorentz transformations were wrong, because the mathematics of the theories in these fields rests on the mathematics of general relativity.

Physics has put all its eggs in one basket with their faith in relativity! Thus there is good reason why physics authorities want our counterexample suppressed forever. Having alternative theories invites experimental testing and relativity is too big to fail! If it falls then the life work of physics authorities, and the life work of so many others which is based on absolute faith in relativity, becomes invalid.

It has been thoroughly tested that the speed of light in space always remains the same, and thus the light postulate is true. However, physicists have not done needed critical experimental testing of the Lorentz transformations. Yet, despite the lack of proper experimental support as a basis to form an opinion, there is a near-absolute belief among physicists that Lorentz transformations are true. How did this happen? We believe there are three major reasons for this:
(1) verification of the postulates being wrongly assumed to also mean a verification of the Lorentz transformations since physicists believe that Einstein showed, through his derivation, that if the postulates are true then so are the Lorentz transformations
(2) lack of another theory consistent with special relativity's two postulates which could push for testing between the equations and predictions of the theories
(3) physics authorities use their influence both to suppress publication and dissemination of special relativity's shortcomings and to hype the theory, competing with each other at every turn to emerge as the greater champion of the theory.

Professors who compile or disseminate on experimental status of relativity  examples are Professors Clifford Will and John Baez and we give more detail later in the book  do so on a biased basis, which always carries the message that special relativity has passed all tests. We have already mentioned suppression of the Quasar Time Dilation Failure of special relativity.  Beyond that such professors, and at least these two in particular, love to throw the word "crackpot" at those who question special relativity. In our view, there perhaps can be no greater crackpot than a professor who provides and disseminates a compilation that spreads misinformation on experimental status throughout the world. Professors Baez and Will are two such notorious relativity worshipping crackpot professors.

With all the hype about special relativity by the physics establishment, the message is clearly received by all physicists, and absorbed by those just starting a career in physics, that special relativity is something you praise and not question unless you are a crackpot! And part of the praise is to repeatedly recite the mantra that special relativity "has passed all tests" no matter what the facts. All of professional physics sang this official line across the world at the centenary celebrations of Einstein's 1905 paper. It is not that everyone in physics has learnt to follow suppression methodology when it comes to special relativity. It is that physics authorities like to keep their professors, teachers and students ignorant of objective scientific truths, as a result of which they, along with the public, believe and recite that special relativity "has passed all tests." Throughout history people have often come to power in government, church and other organizations who excelled in the art of keeping their own members ignorant of reality, as a part of larger scheme of keeping the public unaware. Physics today is under control of such authorities.

Our counterexample to Einstein's derivation is also being suppressed by authorities, with three Nobel Prize winners Steven Weinberg, Gerard 't Hooft and Frank Wilczek – commenting on our paper but evading the question of whether we have a counterexample. Either our equations form a counterexample or they don't. How much simpler in its thesis and in its invite to find a flaw in the technical arguments could a paper be? If there was no counterexample they would surely have pointed that out with glee. In a later chapter we document their comments, as well as those of others.

We believe even today's physics authorities, despite their full commitment to special relativity, might have been willing to come to the negotiating table and consider facing reality about the future of relativity. They may realize that the suppression methodology, though very successful today, might not be a reliable means of assuring a permanent status quo. But the powers-that-be will only consider a theory that limits down to the Lorentz transformations, because to not have the Lorentz transformations be a limiting case of any replacement theory would be a crash of today's physics. In our view, nature is pointing so a crash. But physics authorities will not allow such a crash. So poor physicists across the world have to continue to indefinitely work with and build on the Lorentz transformations, even if these equations are wrong. What a waste of taxpayer money and their lives!

Physics is a field where a privileged few decide the course, and the masses follow. And these few today, in our opinion, are not making good and honest decisions. Do all fields, and indeed the whole world in its separate parts, function this way? Is all decided by the few in leadership? We believe that is quite possibly how things largely function once a leadership is established in a field. The process of establishing or changing leadership can be more diverse, depending on the field, and we do not want to go into that here. (We briefly point out leadership does not automatically come from title but needs having vast majority who approve of the leadership, substantial length of time in power etc.). How do the masses, or members of a group, behave when compared to the behavior of those in leadership? We believe the answer is that masses largely emulate the behavior and walk along the paths the established leaders choose. So perhaps a field, particularly an intellectual field, can work wonderfully when the privileged few in control are honest and objective, because the masses will emulate these standards and behavior. Similarly an academic field gets on a path of dogma when suppression of truth is practiced by those in power, because the rest will also walk the path of ignoring and suppressing inconvenient truths. Is leadership in science fields traditionally more ethical and objective than that in other fields? Whatever the answer, it does not help us with the situation today.

Max Planck, considered to be the originator of quantum mechanics, noted: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" [ ]. So physics and science has this general problem of scientists sticking to wrong scientific beliefs and not admitting that they are wrong despite the objective evidence.  But Planck and his colleagues, which included Einstein, were never worshippers and suppressors. Today, in contrast, just as zealots and fundamentalists of one religion will not look at contradictory material from another source, relativity worshipping physics authorities will not consider alternatives to special relativity.

Biased media has played a big role in hyping relativity and in suppression of its shortcomings, and we will discuss this in detail in a later chapter. Consider the Quasars Time Dilation failure. Almost all of science media and all of general media refused to report it – and these same news outlets report every experimental success of relativity worldwide. To get this quasars bad news one would have had to read New Scientist magazine, Phys.org or blogger Lubos Motl. The rest were, likely in collusion with relativity worshipping authorities, suppressing this news. Not all media would need to act in collusion with physics authorities in such suppression because for a large number of news outlets hyping relativity been a long-term independent policy, and disseminating bad news about special relativity would not be consistent with that policy.

Suppression is unfortunate but it is reality in physics today when it comes to theoretical and experimental problems with relativity. Is such suppression methodology consistent with traditional methodology of science? We believe that the nature of science, which includes the methodology of science, is variable and depends on those who hold power in the field at the time. Today's powers-that-be in physics are relativity worshippers and suppressors, breaking from predecessors who shunned such behavior. One effective methodology physics authorities have adopted is branding and dismissing all who challenge the foundations of relativity, including those who use proper and rigorous scientific methodology, to be crackpots. So today suppression is a key methodology of physics when it comes to relativity. But tomorrow, possibly with regime change, the methodology of physics may change with an objective and idealistic government in power which does not worship relativity and which shuns suppression.

Philosopher Paul Feyerabend called science the "most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution" [ ] asserting that "science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight" [ ].  In an article [ ] whose purpose was to challenge and criticize philosophers like Kuhn and Feyerabend, Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg Steven Weinberg sums up his view of scientific reality: 
There is a "hard" part of modern physical theories ("hard" meaning not difficult, but durable, like bones in paleontology or potsherds in archeology) that usually consists of the equations themselves, together with some understandings about what the symbols mean operationally and about the sorts of phenomena to which they apply. Then there is a "soft" part; it is the vision of reality that we use to explain to ourselves why the equations work ... But after our theories reach their mature forms, their hard parts represent permanent accomplishments ... I think that Kuhn overestimated the degree to which scientists during a period of normal science are captives of their paradigms. There are many examples of scientists who remained skeptical about the soft parts of their own theories" [italics mine].
As Weinberg implies in above note, there is no skepticism of equations parts of established theories because they are deemed to be permanent accomplishments. Kuhn pointed out that physicists do not like refute their foundational theories.  What Weinberg notes in his experience is actually consistent with what Kuhn says, because if physicists are not going to be skeptical of established equations they obviously will not try to refute them. And physics is centered around equations.

While we disagree with above quoted blanket statements  that Feyerabend makes about science, we believe he does properly characterize the field of physics as it behaves today when it comes to special relativity, in that physics actually functions as an "oppressive" "religious institution" that suppresses valid challenges to its holy equations of special relativity and their foundations.

Physicists have not attempted to counter our proper and rigorous scientific challenge to special relativity using reason and intelligence; instead, anger, evasion and refusal to address the specifics has been the general reaction of relativity worshipping physics authorities. It would seem many of today's physicists have only religiously memorized and never tried to question or refute Einstein's derivation, so they cannot address such challenges to foundations. In a later chapter we will give more details of our experiences with physics authorities as well as devote more space to discussion of philosophy of science, religion and authority.  We will also look at the evolving roles of Vatican (church) authorities and physics authorities, and discuss how the Vatican methodology of preventing publication of scientific reality  has been embraced and aggressively put to practice by today's physics authorities . It seems that in recent decades, while Vatican authorities have been becoming open to acknowledging scientific facts that go against their beliefs, physics authorities have become "most aggressive and most dogmatic" regarding protecting their beliefs in special relativity by shielding their believers from objective and verifiable scientific facts against it.  


We live in a special time in physics history because never before has there been such authoritarian religious worship of a theory and suppression of facts against it. It is for this reason that we call today’s physics establishment the relativity worshipping Church of Physics.

Preview of Chapter 2. What Unstated Assumptions did Einstein make that makes his Derivation of the Lorentz transformations not valid? 

 Below notes about where Einstein went wrong will be fully explained in our book and will be part of a fuller chapter on such matters.

We continue the discussion in the previous chapter of Einstein's path to the Lorentz transformations. Since we have a counterexample to Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformations from the two postulates of special relativity, we already know that his derivation of the Lorentz transformations cannot be correct. Einstein chose to avoid infinity and chose to start with distance and time. Those were already two choices made about what path to follow or not follow. By not considering, or not being aware of, alternative paths he had already made unstated assumptions about what paths are available. A derivation based on such unstated assumptions is not a valid derivation.

But let us examine some of the other unstated assumptions Einstein made that led him to the Lorentz transformations. Again, the Lorentz transformations replaced the equations of Galilean-Newtonian physics (which for short we will call Newtonian physics or classical physics in this chapter).

Einstein followed the standard interpretations of Newtonian physics in matters of speed and time, and reached certain conclusions. These conclusions then formed the basis of unstated assumptions.

Let us pause here to review this task of finding unstated assumptions made by Einstein that we have taken on. Is this how theoretical physics functions? Further, are we out to prove that Newtonian physics, by itself, is wrong too in its conclusions?

Let us answer the second question first. While we can argue about interpretations of speed and time in Newtonian physics, such arguments remain philosophical and do not attempt to change the laws and equations of  Newtonian physics. However, carrying over conclusions about speed and time from Newtonian physics has serious implications for the new situation regarding what sets of equations follow from the constancy of the speed of light.

Now let us address the first question. Looking for unstated assumptions in foundational theories is not how theoretical physics functions because physicists normally never attempt to refute foundational theories. In particular special relativity and Einstein's reasoning on which its equations are founded has been declared by physics authorities to be beyond question; it is, we believe, because of such shared religious blind faith that special relativity has survived for over a hundred years. But, as some others and I believe, determinedly looking for wrong or unstated assumptions in foundational theories should be part of what physicists do. Who are the others who so believe?

Physicist Lee Smolin is one and his book, The Trouble with Physics, suggests that there might be "some wrong assumption we are all making" and "someone needs to find that  unexamined assumption" [ ]. Smolin has become the public face of Loop Quantum Gravity, which is one of the two major paths attempting to unite general relativity (gravity) with quantum mechanics. What attracted us to loop quantum gravity was that a few people within it were, like us, interested in discrete structures of space and were boldly trying to modify special relativity. These heretics, who would modify special relativity, are mainly from Europe and Smolin (who is American) suggests that such pursuit would not have earned them a position in American physics. What was of most interest to us was that they were looking to modify special relativity’s length contraction, by having observers measure equal lengths at small scales. We certainly shared their desire to modify length contraction and, as mentioned in chapter 1, our theory entirely removes length contraction.

Another group that was of interest to us had Alan Kostelecky at its major proponent, and these comprised mainly experimentalists that were looking for "Lorentz violations," as a means to extend what is the known as the Standard Model of particle physics. But what they called a search for "Lorentz violations" was mainly a search for violations of the postulates of special relativity and not a test of the equations which comprise the Lorentz transformations; however, for them both were the same since they believed that testing the postulates is equivalent to testing the Lorentz transformations.

Both the quantum gravity and the standard model extension folks agreed with Einstein's reasoning, as did the world, that the two postulates necessarily imply the Lorentz transformations. So they were looking for modifications of special relativity, but with the restriction that the equations of any new theory would limit down to the Lorentz transformations. We did not agree with Einstein's reasoning and conclusions and thus felt no restriction to have the Lorentz transformations as a limiting case. So we were happily alone in looking for a new theory whose equations would have Newtonian physics as a limiting case, and that would entirely replace the Lorentz transformations rather than continue to maintain them as the foundation our theory must link to. If we succeeded, what would get the theory immediate recognition (we expected and hoped) was that, by finding such new equations which are consistent with the two postulates, we would have a counterexample to Einstein's derivation. Existence of a counterexample would be immediate proof – no experiments needed – that Einstein’s reasoning was, in fact, wrong. We did succeed finding a counterexample, exactly as we hoped. But then began a struggle with the suppression methodologies of authorities of the relativity worshipping church of physics. Let us continue with the science below and come back to church authorities in later chapters.

The task we had taken on was to show that link between the two postulates and the Lorentz transformations is not a valid one. Accepting Einstein’s derivation of the Lorentz transformations from the postulates, and not finding the unstated assumptions that form its basis, is where modern physics went wrong! We continue analyzing those unstated assumptions below.

Einstein followed this seemingly infallible logic: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there existed formulas by which distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers. This unstated and wrong assumption about speed was, in our opinion, central to Einstein's thinking; such assumption follows from thinking along the lines of 'linear' foundations of Newtonian physics. This assumption and logic is accepted by all physicists and is used as a means to explain Einstein’s derivation. Lee Smolin discusses this logic in his book, The Trouble with Physics [ ]:

The key is that  we do not measure speed  directly. Speed is a ratio:  It is a certain distance per a certain time. The central realization of Einstein is that different observers measure a photon [light] to have the same speed, even if they are moving with respect to each other, because they measure space and time differently. Their measurements of time and distance vary from each other in such a way that one speed, that of light, is universal.

Einstein's above conclusion that for different observers to measure light to have the same speed it is necessary that observers measure lengths in space differently was wrong. We can argue if we rearrange and put time=distance/speed then speed is no longer a ratio and time becomes the ratio, and then it is time and not speed that we can supposedly claim to not measure directly. The relationship between time and speed and whether one, and only one, should be considered the primary physical quantity is an interesting philosophical question. Time, and not speed, being a primary quantity is a dogma which we explicitly rejected in chapter 1. There we gave our simple reasons why, in our theory, we "have velocity and not time as the quantity we prefer to work with as a starting point." What is reality is that, in our theory, we are able to explain the constancy of speed of light without observers measuring length of objects differently. The reasoning about the necessary implications of speed=distance/time is thus shown to be wrong.

Einstein continued thinking along the 'linear' foundations of Newtonian physics and made further unstated assumptions about velocity. Einstein's velocity addition is also 'linear' just as a Newton's was. Einstein failed to abandon this flaw in of 'linear' thinking in Newton's laws and thus failed to get the right equations. Newton did not have any data that would suggest that light is not obeying classical velocity addition, so there was no reason for him to think beyond simple linear classical velocity addition and look for a new theory of velocity. Einstein had the facts about the behavior of light but was unable to abandon the 'linear' velocity addition of classical physics, and built relativity on this continued 'linear' thinking.  

Einstein did not have a theory of velocity different from Newtonian. There is a (ux ± v) term denoting simple 'linear' velocity addition that appears in both Newtonian physics and relativity. Let us look at typical setup which considers two observers, You and Other, who are looking at a moving object. Other is moving at velocity v is the positive x-direction relative to You. If You see an object moving at velocity u how does Other see that moving? In chapter 1 we looked at motion in a single line for simplicity but, of course, objects move in three dimensions. Velocity is a vector with a magnitude (value) and a direction, and a vector can be broken into components along x, y and z directions. ux represents x-component of the velocity u. Vector components are numbers with signs, and the sign given to individual components comes from the vector's direction. Breaking vectors into components is a way to add or subtract vectors. It is the x-component, ux, which is added or subtracted from v because v was assumed to also be in the x direction. Given that we took v to be in the positive x-direction, according to Newtonian physics (ignoring relativity) Other will see the x-component of velocity of the object to be u'x = (ux v). In relativity this (ux v) term also appears in its formula for u'x. In relativity (ux v) itself is not the x-component of velocity as seen by Other but is still a linear velocity addition. In our theory velocity addition is not linear because from ux and v we get jumps per unit time N and those are what we add, as explained in the previous chapter. Thus we have a theory of velocity that abandons the 'linear' velocity addition of Newtonian and relativistic physics.

Einstein further founded relativity on the standard interpretation of absolute time in Newtonian physics. We do not agree with this interpretation of time and, in fact, this interpretation is linked to the question of whether speed or time is the primary physical quantity.

P
hysics books widely state that in classical physics time was "absolute" by which they mean that is was an independent quantity that "flows" at a constant pace. What all these books have been repeating for centuries has become the standard and established interpretation. We do not agree with this view of time in Newtonian physics; no equation of classical physics implies that time is an independent quantity that "flows" at a constant pace. This statement would be surprising to many readers, and would contradict what they have read in many text books and popular science books that detail the path from Newtonian physics to special relativity. It would also be surprising to Einstein, as we discuss below! If physics is equations then these writers failed to understand Newton’s laws and equations, and what these equations imply about time. They went for Newton quotations from Principia; but these quotes about time are just secondary opinion with no physics equations to back it up. You can either go after the superfluous or you can try to understand physics through what the equations imply; physics authors have unanimously chosen the former when it comes to classical physics and time.

In our analysis we are ignoring superfluous statements, such as Newton's statement about time from Principia, and looking at the equations of Newtonian physics and what they imply about time. Physicists and philosophers have published much about a clash between Newtonian physics and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz  regarding the philosophy of time. Leibniz stated that time is not an independent entity that "flows", but comes into existence because there is change. (Note that motion of an object, of course, is a change). According to Leibniz's philosophy, if nothing changed there would be no time.  However, the equations of Newtonian physics actually do not contradict the philosophy that if nothing changed there would be no time.  We will come back to Leibniz and Newton in a later chapter, and there we will look at the superfluous Principia quotes.

Einstein, throughout his life, held the standard view that in "classical physics" "time is something 'absolute' which flows in the same way for all observers" (quote from the book The Evolution of Physics by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld) [ ]. We further quote from the book Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein which states: "As a matter of fact, according to classical mechanics, time is absolute ... We see this expressed in the last equation of the Galilean transformation (t' = t)"  [ ]. Here t and t' represent time as measured by the two observers. We do not take t' = t in classical physics to have meant that time itself was "absolute" and  "flows" as an independent physical quantity – it only meant that the physics equations worked in such a way that all observers measured the same time for the same event. Einstein could argue that he is entitled to his interpretation of what t' = t of classical physics means, and this interpretation is also consistent with what Newton stated in the Principia. However, we consider those statements in the  Principia  to be superfluous and, looking at the equations of classical physics, see no reason to take t' = t to imply that "time is something 'absolute' which flows in the same way for all observers." Again, t' = t simply follows from the other equations of classical physics and there is no need to make it an independent statement about time "flow" and observers.

We, of course, agree that the  t' = t Newtonian physics is now known to not always hold true, and this is an extraordinary and revolutionary implication of the constancy of the speed of light. Thus Newtonian physics is history because its equations do not hold true and need replacement! What we are addressing here are the interpretations regarding the nature of time in the equations of Newtonian physics versus those of special relativity.

As we did for time in Newtonian physics, we look at the equations of special relativity and what they say about time.  In special relativity the t' = t of Newtonian physics changes to t' =  gamma-factor t where gamma-factor is the time dilation ratio that is calculated from the the relative velocity v between the inertial frames of the observers. In the Lorentz transformations time actually is an independent physical quantity because these equations represent actual time dilation. This claim about time we consider to be highly questionable philosophically, and this was a major motivation in our finding alternative equations that are consistent with relativity’s two postulates. In both our theory and Newtonian physics there are established equations for velocity addition, and from these and other equations comes the relationship between t' and t, depending on the event being measured. The equations of Newtonian physics are such that we get t' = t for all events. In special relativity t' =  gamma-factor t is a time dilation formula that applies between the inertial frames of the two observers and, using this formula, the ratio of time rates between clocks in the two inertial frames is computed from the relative velocity between the frames. In special relativity t' =  gamma-factor t was "derived" by Einstein and from this formula velocity equations were then found. We do not agree with this philosophy of  first getting an independent time equation and then from that getting velocity equations. It all goes back to the issue we discuss above and in chapter 1 regarding velocity and time, and which is the primary quantity and which should be the derived quantity.

In Newtonian physics different observers will measure the same time for an object travelling a certain number of distance units from one point to another. In our theory different observers will measure the same time if we talk of number of jumps an object makes (and do not go into length of these jumps). However, in our theory when two observers are measuring an object travelling a certain number of distance units from one point to another they will measure different times. This difference in measured time arises because of differences in jump lengths observed, and in fact the observed times have the same ratio as the observed jump lengths. (From chapter 1 we have v = NLd where jump length is Ld, with d causing "shrinkage" of the the jump length. If there was no "shrinkage" then we would have t' = t for all events). But, in our theory, observers measuring different times does not mean that time itself has "dilated" causing different relative time "flow" between the frames. In our theory we cannot talk of time other than with respect to a specific event being measured; all we can say it is that for a specific observed event we have measured different times. This different time measurement results from the mechanics of the equations associated with the specific physical event being measured. Again, this is unlike the Lorentz transformations where time itself dilates. In our theory, the ratio between the time measured by the two observers depends on the event being measured (and in certain cases observers in different frames could measure the same time); however, this could never happen with the Lorentz transformations because there the time ratio comes from the gamma-factor of the time dilation formula between the observers' inertial frames of reference and does not depend on the specific event being observed.

In relativity time measured by different observers changes in such a way so as to have velocity of light remain the same for all observers. In our theory the formulas of velocity and relative velocity are such that if follows from them that 1) velocity of light remains the same for all observers and 2) in certain cases different observers will measure different times for the same event.

Of course, clocks are not devices that have a methodology to "pick out" the time part from any supposed space-time out there; they have mechanisms and the motion involved in  these mechanisms determines the times that clocks show. In our theory different clock mechanisms observed by the same two observers could give different time ratios. This is a key experimentally testable way to decide between our theory and special relativity. Note that if different clock mechanisms observed by the same two observers give different time ratios then it would show that time itself does not dilate, because if it was time itself that was dilating then all clocks in an observer's frame would necessarily record the same dilation.

Special relativity's Lorentz transformations were later expressed as a four-dimensional model called Minkowski spacetime, after the mathematician-physicist who did this reformulation.

We do not have a four-dimensional spacetime, and nor can that type of spacetime be built using our equations. We can all observe our physical three-dimensional world, and why should we look for complicated theories with more dimensions? However, many of today's leading physics theories have gone beyond even the four-dimensional spacetime of relativity by adding more space dimensions.  Our equations show that is was wrong to conclude that just because all observers see light at the same speed one must give up our familiar three-dimensional space of Newtonian physics, with time being separate, and develop a strange new spacetime. Of course, as noted above, we do not agree with how physicists – including Einstein – interpreted time in Newtonian physics; we have stated our interpretation. And we absolutely do not agree with the philosophy adopted by Einstein, Minkowski and then others, and which is built into their equations, that time itself dilates.

We do not need to go into mathematical details of special relativity's spacetime, particularly since we do not want to discuss again what we noted above about time in special relativity versus classical physics. We rest our discussion on the Lorentz transformations. We need not go further because there is no spacetime if the Lorentz transformations are wrong.
Preview of Chapter 3. Experimental Failure of Special Relativity, and Low-cost Experiments That Can Create More Failures (very brief individual experimental details and background to be added)  

We have copy-pasted below from our actual physics paper. In the book we will rewrite below to clearly explain each experiment, so that no previous knowledge is required. So this is only a very brief draft, and not an excerpt from what will be the actual text of the chapter.

Our theory, though yielding equations different from the Lorentz transformations, is consistent with relativity’s two postulates and its momentum-energy formulas. Numerous experiments have tested and confirmed these postulates and momentum-energy equations.

No experiments aimed at directly testing the relativistic velocity transformations have been performed; in general our velocity addition rules give different results. However, for the case of motion of light (1) along the direction of relative motion between two frames and (2) perpendicular to that direction (as seen by one of the frames) relativity’s formulas gives the same results as our velocity addition rules, one of these cases having been demonstrated by the light clock example. These two directions were used in the setup of Michelson-Morley experiment.

Relativity’s prediction of different time measurement by observers has been experimentally confirmed and in certain cases (such as the light clock) our theory gives the same factor relating time measurements as relativity. But we repeat that the theories differ fundamentally on the nature of time. While doing away with the concept of “absolute time,” relativity presented a new thesis of “relative time flow” between inertial frames. Our theory’s equations only allow us to talk about how observers in different inertial fames measure time for a specified physical event. We do not have a time dilation formula that applies between inertial frames.

Could there not be a measurable natural process in the universe which will show that relativity is wrong about time dilation, and why has no such process been observed? There can be and it has. Study of timescales of quasar variability has yielded observational data that is inconsistent with special relativity’s time dilation.

It is commonly stated that a single replicable experimental observation that contradicts a physics theory’s prediction is enough to prove the theory wrong. As Einstein noted: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." However, we give below three other ways to show that relativity is wrong.

We previously noted that for the case of ux = c we will have t' = t and relativity’s thought experiments centered around this case will fail to create the non-simultaneity predicted by relativity. Consider the traincar-and-platform thought experiment commonly used to illustrate the implications of special relativity. This thought experiment consists of one observer midway inside a speeding traincar and another observer standing on the platform as the train moves past. A flash of light is given off at the center of the traincar just as the two observers pass each other.

The observer onboard the train sees the front and back of the traincar at fixed distances from the source of light and as such, according to this observer, the light will reach the front and back of the traincar at the same time (simultaneously).

The observer standing on the platform, on the other hand, sees the rear of the traincar moving (catching up) toward the point at which the flash was given off and the front of the traincar moving away from it. As the speed of light is finite and the same for all observers, the light headed for the back of the train will have less distance to cover than the light headed for the front. Thus, special relativity notes, the observer on the platform will see the flashes of light strike the ends of the traincar at different times (and the event of light striking the ends will appear non-simultaneous to this observer).

Again, in our theory, different observers can measure different times but not in this specific case. Here the light will be seen by both to strike the ends of the traincar simultaneously because here we have ux = c and thus we will have t' = t.

We believe the above thought experiment can, using today’s technology, actually be implemented in a table- top form. The table-top traincar will not have to travel at very high speed because the other devices in the experiment can be cameras, and high speed cameras today can take pictures at very high number of frames per second.

The ux = c case can also be used to build a clock that undergoes no time dilation. Here too, very high speed is not required and results from this clock can be compared with a traditional clock, say a standard atomic clock such as those that have been used to experimentally test time dilation. Hafele & Keating did such a test. The results will contradict the numerous clock-based confirmations of relativity’s time dilation and will illustrate that relativity’s thesis of time — that clocks in different inertial frames measure different times because time itself has undergone a relative dilation — is wrong.

Invariance of length of rigid bodies is a key feature differentiating our theory from the Lorentz transformations. No test of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction has been performed. The desktop traincar-and-platform experiment suggested above can also be based on measuring length and it will show no length contraction.

Preview of Chapter 4, Part A. Explaining the Continuous Triumphant Experimental Verifications of Relativity’s Time Dilation: Illogic of Experimental Conclusions Illustrated by the Story of Holy Equations of Fictional Planet Venuts, Where its Militant Church of Physics Used the Differentiation of Experimental Verification to Become the Leading Religion
It is our belief that the nature of science, which includes the methodology of science, is variable and depends on those who rule in the field at the time. This chapter shows what can go wrong with the methodology of science, and we use fictional planet Venuts to illustrate. Do note that Venuts is not Earth.

Planet Venuts distinguishing features included a high density crust, large radius, and very high mountains. A monumental experimentally-verified physics discovery was that gravity affects time, and time dilates as you go up from planet’s surface. The early formula was that “time flow” varies in inverse proportion to the square root of g. (g is the acceleration due to gravity. g is what brings a ball back down to Venuts when you throw it up, decreasing the speed until the ball stops going up and then increasing speed as it came down. g of a planet depends on mass and radius, and properties of Venuts caused its g to be relatively very large). The picture of the great bearded physicist with a simple pendulum in his hand climbing the mountains to show that time itself dilates became the classic image of newly founded experimental physics and of true genius.
(*Relativity worshipping physicists of planet Earth would laugh at any concept of Time Dilation and gravity based on a Simple Pendulum. Further, Simple Pendulum formula not only has no connection to Earth's Relativistic Gravitational Time Dilation formula but would have time moving slower when higher, which is opposite what has been experimentally "shown" on Earth. However, Simple Pendulum and such clocks, are relevant to key examination in our book regarding whether Earth experiments have actually shown that time itself Dilates.)

The slowing of time was repeatedly demonstrated by the same pendulum taking longer to complete a back-and-forth cycle when higher. With this emerging connection between gravity and time, the term “gravitime” came to used in physics. Venutsian philosophers were devastated that this new field of physics could experimentally show that their conclusions about the “uniform flow” of time were wrong. With its high value of g and its very tall mountains Venutsian teachers could take entire group of school kids up the mountains with a simple pendulum in the teacher’s hand and have students see that time itself dilates as one goes up. To further confirm that it actually is time that is dilating and that this is independent of clock mechanism they used an oscillating spring clock to show that the same square root of g time dilation holds.

A school of physics geniuses cropped up to build on this discovery of time dilation. Eventually the square root of g formula was refined but the concept of gravity causing time dilation as illustrated by simple experiment captured the imagination of all of Venuts and made physics the most admired intellectual pursuit. With professional physicists in unanimous agreement, time dilation came to be regarded as being beyond a shadow of doubt – very much like the truths of religion was to its priests. Some skeptics remained – many of whom started off as aspiring physicists but dropped out, often involuntarily, having no career prospects. In physics the best of minds maintained a no-nonsense attitude when it came to time dilation, and crackpots were removed early from the system of students studying to be physicists. “If there is even one crackpot in the physics profession, that is one crackpot too many” thundered the great physics authority and all the physicists applauded. No professional physicist remained who questioned the claim that time itself dilates.

Biological effects of time dilation were verified multiple times, starting with when one twin was sent to live high up in the mountains, while the other lived down in the flatlands. When they met, the mountain twin looked young and healthy compared to the one in the flatlands. Lots of Venutsians retired to the hills and enjoyed the healthy benefits of time dilation, apparently remaining younger than their counterparts living on the lands below.

Ventusian physics faced a crisis when experiments showed that speed of light always remains the same no matter with what speed the observer measuring the speed of slight is itself moving. Multiple types of experimental setups were done to confirm this astonishing result. It violated the basic common sense about motion and required a revamp of old equations of relative motion.

Two geniuses – working together while their nations went to war with each other – emerged to provide the solutions physics needed. They followed this seemingly infallible logic: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there existed formulas by which distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers. Already familiar with gravitational Time Dilation concept, they introduced motion-based Time Dilation along with the new extraordinary concept of Length Contraction. Their derivation of what physics equations must necessarily follow from the constancy of the speed of light became the most admired work of Venutsian modern physics. Gravity, motion, space, and time were now all connected and this collaborating pair and their equations became the founding equations of the physics of Venuts. They were the most honored people of their century – leaders of both science and peace.
Preview of Chapter 4, Part B: Story of Holy Equations of Fictional Planet Venuts. Church of Physics in Power on Venuts: Its Task of Maintaining the Holy Equations as Truth by Suppression of Conflicting Experimental Results, Control Over Which Experiments are Performed in Future, and Subjective Interpretations of Experimental Data Leading to Pre-determined Conclusions
The Church of Physics was now the main religion of Venuts, with its Holy Equations as its foundation.

The Church of Physics had absorbed within itself other physics organizations of Venuts, including the powerful group called Allied Physical Society (APS); much of the early Church leadership came from APS. The highest position in physics was Bishop of the Church of Physics. There were no more than a dozen active Bishops and they were chosen from those who devoted their lives to building on the Holy Equations. It was an honor that was far above all other awards and recognitions in science and non-science academic fields. The Bishops met at regular scheduled meetings open to the public as well as closed meetings. No one else could attend Bishop-Level closed meetings and these meetings kept no records of what was discussed. Urgently called meetings were Zeta Meetings.

Bishop-Level Zeta Closed Meeting. Agenda: Unauthorized clock used to show Holy Equations’ Time Dilation formula wrong

“We called this Zeta meet because of a situation which we are calling the Elefah-Gnitaek Incident. A test of the Time Dilation formulas of the Holy Equations was being performed by our highly respected professors Elefah and Gnitaek using atomic clocks and our highest-speed space planes. The pilot turned out be carrying an unauthorized clock to attempt an alternative test of Time Dilation. You have some of the details in the brief, others are just coming in. The pilot took an unauthorized high-precision Tuning Fork clock which underwent a Time Dilation when compared to its twin clock left on the ground. But the pilot’s clocks gave a time dilation which seemingly contradicted the Time Dilation of the Holy Equations. Elefah and Gnitaek successfully verified with their atomic clocks that Time Dilation was as predicted by the Holy Equations.

“The only precision clocks are atomic clocks. No other clock can measure Time Dilation. How did a Tuning Fork clock even show a Time Dilation reading?

“Two factors. First is that Tuning Fork clocks were highest precision just before the atomic clocks took over, and even were the clocks in our space programs. The pilot obtained the highest precision prototype directly from the manufacturer. The second factor is that our space-planes have gotten very fast making it easier to test our high speed space and time formulas.

“What kinds of pilots are we hiring for our most important missions? Rebels?

“The pilot had passed all background checks. She was a supporter of the Church of Physics from her early days. She was outspoken against traditional religion and particularly attacked their miracles as being unproved and impossible. She briefly worked with an experimental physics lab after college, but left to become a pilot and wanted to be an astronaut.

“In recent years she evolved into what they call a spiritual atheist, and met the wrong people who showed her crackpot physics papers.

“I hate the phrase ‘spiritual atheist’ – spiritual mumbo-jumbo is a threat to atheism. I have always said that. Now even our own church has these spiritual people and we accept them. We have become too liberal.

“How did she get into clock experiments?

“Among her most read documents was a paper which we had deleted from Ourchive database as being nonsense.

“It got into Ourchive by being disguised as normal looking paper that was suggesting new applications of the Holy Equations. The paper was made to circumvent our auto scans. Its real agenda was in a foot-note, and even that had enough filler material to camouflage the message and circumvent Ourchive filters. The foot-note, with the filler material removed says this: There might be no dilation of time itself … clocks are mechanisms that are affected by forces and motion so they show different times when moving and when under influence of gravity … it is wrong to assume that time itself dilates … if you know the clock mechanism then time dilation as a concept is not needed … you can predict the time change, and this will not be same for all clocks, but will vary depending on mechanism.
He named the tuning fork clock as a way to….

“How did such a paper even get into Ourchive? It is Ourchive as in Our as in O-U-R.”

“Only physics professors can get in a new candidate’s paper, which is meant to be used for their doctoral students. And professors know that their career is ruined if even one crackpot paper gets endorsed. Doesn’t matter who you are; you help get a crackpot on Ourchive, you are blacklisted as a crackpot yourself. We have ended careers.

“The author was at the time a doctoral in a physics department, and uploaded it. The author has since left physics and his professor was blacklisted and cannot get a paper into Ourchive or in any physics journals. They are both history as far as being part of physics is concerned.

“We don’t delete fraudulent papers fast enough, that is our problem!

“We don’t know what papers to delete. The paper was camouflaged to not raise any flags and even that foot-note suggesting clock mechanisms would explain time dilation had deliberate filler material.

“What is this clock mechanism nonsense? Lifetimes of muons undergo Time Dilation. The muon is a point particle, and we have experimentally verified this fact. Means there is no internal structure and thus no possible mechanism inside a muon. So we know Time Dilation has nothing to do with inner mechanism. He, of course, being a crackpot did not address that, did he?

“He did and rejects our experimental conclusion that muon is a point particle. Further, he claims that that only clocks with inner mechanism that is orthogonal to motion will give the exact Holy Equations Time Dilation.

“Who is he to reject our conclusion about muon being a point particle – a conclusion from experiment, E-X-P-E-R-I-M-E-N-T! What ‘inner mechanism’? What orthogonal? We have shown time and time again through experimental verifications that Time Dilation happens because it is time itself that is actually dilating. The published experimental results state clearly that time itself has been shown to dilate, and the dilation is always exactly as predicted by the Time Dilation formula. We are highly competent professionals and what is experimentally verified by our experts is locked as truth. If not then physics would never function.

“This kind of clock mechanism nonsense is a waste of everyone’s time! Are we at the helm of physics now answerable to every rambling crackpot?

“We are here because of the Tuning Fork clock experiment, not because of a paper he wrote that we removed from Ourchive.

“Don’t use the word ‘experiment.’ There was no tuning fork clock experiment. Only we do experiments. Us, we – APS, Church of physics.

“What is the story with this Ourchive infiltrator author, what is he doing now?

“The Ourchive infiltrator dropped out of physics soon after submission of the paper, but bragged out his paper’s removal from Ourchive on the net – to him it was a badge of honor and for a while he became a hero among crackpots.

“What is he doing now?

“Teaching small kids in school. He no longer tinkers with physics. He calls himself a philosopher now. He has written a philosophy book – about Ethics and Atheism – seems to be writing another. All academic publishers rejected his first book. He will not amount to anything in academia.

“A physics crackpot and a philosophy crackpot. What a loser.

“And the pilot? Whom did she tell about her stunt?

“She contacted our dear prolific experimental science reporter most-admired by the public as ‘Mr. Objective.’ She broke down in front of him and explained she actually was not looking to contradict the Time Dilation formula. She is a believer of the Holy Equations and was being pressured into trying a Tuning Fork clock by anti-science people in her spiritual group who found out that she was flying the new highest-speed plane for a Time Dilation experiment.

“These people suggested that the Church of Physics chooses their clocks, and their experiments are fixed to give results consistent with the Holy Equations.

“Who were these people who told her this?

“The people she met were our two most notorious professors who we shut out of physics. I thought we had heard the last of them but they were not finished bothering us and were seemingly looking to contact space-plane pilots. They probably joined the group to meet her.

“She refused further contact with them but had the paper they gave her and was tempted to try the Tuning Fork clock out of curiosity. She obtained the clock on loan herself – she can apparently be very charming and charismatic, and presented herself as a researcher and admirer of precision time-devices and a budding astronomer. No one knew anything about her plan, she kept it a secret. She had moved to living alone for so-called spiritual reasons after her divorce and there was no daily interaction with anyone. She actually was shocked that Time Dilation result was different in her clock. Our reporter took her to the science-editor for suggestions and discussion. She wanted to know what went wrong and could it be true that time itself does not dilate. The science-editor called us and we picked her up. We tracked her every action and she actually contacted no one else after she landed.

“Where is she now?

“She died.

“That is not fair. She did not have an agenda against us. She was a caught by curiosity.

“What we do we do for the good of all humankind. If she did not have an agenda against us then why read a paper that we have rejected and cast out as trash, she thinks we don’t know how to do physics? She thinks we are stupid to not take multiple clock mechanisms up in the experiment plane, and she has to outsmart us by bringing another type of clock? It was bad company, misuse of her position, carrying hidden contraband, greed and dreams of grandeur that did her in. She did not know that the media is ours, and there is no way to get such a story covered. All she cared is for her own self, with no respect for how her actions may harm our cause and interfere with our duty to the people of Venuts.

“We physicists have full faith in the correctness of the Holy Equations and so do all the people of Venuts. The scientific validity of the Holy Equations is never challenged except by crackpots and she met two of the most notorious ones; no one should listen to such people. All these crackpots have to show for their life's work are repeatedly rejected physics papers. She was corrupted by these two crackpots who confused her and turned her into a faithless saboteur. So the responsibility for her demise is theirs.

“In physics we do an experiment using proper methodology, and publish the result in a peer-reviewed journal, and if it is that important then much of the physics community views the published result and debates it. That is the scientific method and our way of doing physics. Bringing in another clock into someone’s else's properly conducted clock experiment and then taking the result not to us scientists but to the media – that is a dangerous precedent and such behavior can have unfortunate consequences. If she had a scientific suggestion she could have approached physicists and suggested they conduct such an experiment formally and properly. Working through proper channels is the way not just of physics but of society itself. Anarchists and conspiracy theorists are a danger to all properly functioning communities and we will never let such miscreants destroy our values or our way of doing physics.

“I still say that this would never have happened if Ourchive did not get that paper in and then make it worse by removing, we must not let such papers in at all. It was such a paper that inspired her to pull her stunt.

“We no longer remove, we move them to a ‘general’ section which is anything-goes as long as submitted by professional physicists. That section no one cites. We no longer give crackpots bragging rights of having been deleted.

“What do we do about this Tuning Fork clock?

“We tested on our own and the anomaly persists. We, of course, know that our Time Dilation formula is correct. Our selected best minds, who have been authorized to view this classified information, are on it.  It seems there is possibly a ‘local effect’ relating to this clock mechanism which might be in play.

“I think it is likely a flawed clock. A clock must be proper for it to give proper Time Dilation.

“The pilot went from being a believer to a disbeliever based on this anomalous clock mechanism. We cannot retreat and risk losing believers based on anomalies. We have to eradicate the problem.

“The Tuning Fork precision clocks manufacturing unit will be struck by lightning tomorrow night – at a time when there will be no people in the building. These clocks were not selling anyway. Tuning Fork precision clocks will no longer be made on Venuts.

“The other great threat this incident brings out are non-professional want-to-be experimenters with access to high speed travel – the space plane. We cannot allow this experimental adventurism. Space-plane passenger program stands cancelled, we don't want crackpots or curious amateurs doing physics experiments using the high speed we have achieved. Only professional top-ranked physicists and other authorized officials can travel at these high speeds, and only for certain occasions. We will, of course, continue to use it for our urgent Zeta-level meetings; they wonderfully get us back to our cities in minutes.

“We must give Elefah-Gnitaek verification of Time Dilation equations the maximum coverage. This cowardly, under-handed behavior of the pilot should not disrupt the celebration of the success of their experiment. All media must cover it on their front pages. We must make statements that it is a very proud time for all physicists with yet another high-precision verification of the Holy Equations.

“Time Dilation equation works perfectly for atomic clocks, there is no doubt about that. Use these clocks to verify it to more and more accuracy, up to a billionth. Mention the level of accuracy in every school and college science text-book.

…Many years later…

Bishop-Level Closed Meeting. Agenda: Quasars Failure of Time Dilation.

“Quasars are not showing the Time Dilation predicted by the Holy Equations. A lower journal published the experimental findings, all the higher ones refused to publish. It was done by a lone experimenter using a powerful telescope. We should leave him alone but must suppress this. So the bad news is that this is now peer-reviewed, but we monitored the publication attempts and decided that we must let it be published but suppress it thereafter. The experimenter was not expecting this null result, and is a decent Church of Physics member with respect for our authority.

“How do we know that there was not some sort of systematic error in these quasar observations?

“We had our own team run it using our own telescopes because we were sure this result was wrong. Unfortunately, the anomaly he observed is real.

“Any citations to the quasar anomaly paper?

“None, almost no one even knows about it and no Church of Physics researcher cares about an experimental result that allegedly violates the Holy Equations. And dignifying this anomaly by addressing it will not be good for anyone’s career.

“Is the lone experimenter going to make trouble. Accuse us of not addressing this failure?

“No, he is a gentleman. He is not out to rouse the rabble and say the Holy Equations are wrong. He has published and we have suppressed. And both sides should let it stand there and move on.

“In any case the science media will not cover this, so there will be no trouble. Even if the researcher tries to make noise, we will be able to stop it at the start itself.

“Permission to speak freely?

“Always. You are the rising star in physics. Please tell us what is on your mind.

“I would, of course, never say this publicly but, frankly, we realize that physics is a public relations game. In my opinion, the most brilliant strategic decision in physics history was getting the APS office established at the National Press Building in the Capital District. The press sells the story that we want told – that we physicists like to challenge our accepted theories as part of our search for objective truths that are out there. The public believes that we are always looking to find ways to challenge even the most overwhelmingly accepted foundations, and they become foundations because they withstand all these efforts. This has been key to the public perception that the Holy Equations have withstood challenges from scientists who love to refute, and the Equations have proved irrefutable. My books, writings, and talks have helped cement this perception, and many others have worked a lifetime to consolidate this view of physics and science into the minds of the people of Venuts. Thus we can state that if the Holy Equations were wrong then the whole crop of generations of scientists looking to refute would have refuted them. If the people felt that in science we do not like to refute and do not like to address experimental anomalies, then trust in science will be lost.

“We appreciate the efforts of all professionals who have devoted themselves to the cause of creating the needed public perceptions about physics.

“The greatest role the press plays is in suppression of experimental anomalies that challenge our foundations – by not giving them coverage while publicizing every experimental success of the Holy Equations. We physicists are able to live with the reality that we do not like to try to refute our foundational theories and certainly will never attempt to refute the Holy Equations, or tolerate those who try to. The biggest danger to the Holy Equations is an unexpected experimental result. A single experiment can knock our foundations and prove the Holy Equations wrong, and we have to protect against such an event. It has always been the way of physics to build on the foundations and to defend the foundations against those who try to refute; in every sense we are good, normal physicists. We can use selective experimentation but anomalies can arise in unexpected routine experiments. And this is an example, because no one would have expected quasars to not conform to Time Dilation. If the press refused to cooperate in suppressing unwanted experimental results, the talk of the whole planet would be whether the Holy Equations are right or wrong. The importance of our partnership with the science media must not be underestimated and our relationship is of two groups who understand each other’s needs and problems and work together with such understanding, rather than demand an ideal which does not exist.

“People of Venuts should not know anything about physics except what we want them to know. Our journals and Ourchive will never accept a paper that attempts to refute the Holy Equations, and anything that they do not accept is, by definition, insignificant gibberish. No one reads gibberish and no one should. But the problem is with a paper like this that does get published. Even if no professional physicist cites it there is a problem of net search and an experimental anomaly such us quasars not showing Time Dilation coming up as a published paper in such search. The paper can be found even if there are no citations and it will be found as a paper that passed peer-review.

“Surely, we have once-busy physics professors who don’t have much to do all day and have ample time – use them more and more to list the experimental successes and to denounce questioners as crackpots. We must also flood the net with our experimental verifications of Time Dilation, so that verifications is all the people will find. Officially, Time Dilation has passed every Experimental test. What we suppress cannot come up in any net search. Every college professor and school teacher teaches that the equations passed all experiments, because they don’t know of anomalies or other problems. We cannot risk changing that.

“We need not worry about physics teachers in our schools or colleges rebelling against anything. They are sheep who will teach what is put in front of them. If the textbook says that the Holy Equations have passed all experimental tests that is what they are contracted to teach. It does not matter what else a physics professor might know, they will not contradict the written words in the books, let alone boldly state to students that the textbook assigned to them by Church of Physics authorities is not correct.

“Nevertheless, it is better for everyone if our professors and teachers do not know of experimental anomalies in the first place.

“Agreed. And let us work hard to keep it that way.

“All of us are here because we have full faith that Time Dilation and Length Contraction are true, and full faith in our experiments that have shown them to be beyond a shadow of doubt. We don’t care who does what experiments to try to refute whatever other established physics. Just don’t refute the Holy Equations, these are the foundations that we have built on. We are teaching students the truth, as we always do in science. If the foundations go then so does much of our life’s work, and everybody else’s life’s work. Most important is our victory over old religions based on experimental verification of the Holy Equations as the truth above all falsehoods of the old religions. We are exploiting planetary resources to the largest scale in our Super Machine project to build an actual new universe using the foundations of the Holy Equations; the people of Venuts have full faith in us.

“We destroyed religion and made atheism mainstream and there is no greater progress than that in the history of Venuts. We did it all for the people of Venuts.

“We have to conclude addressing the telescope issue at hand; we can leave the philosophizing for later.

“The greatest danger to the church of physics may be the possession of advanced telescopes by non-professionals or non-cooperative professional physicists. Who knows what discoveries they could make as telescopes get more advanced? Telescopes were the worst thing to happen to the ‘Venuts is center of universe’ view of the old churches, and now the telescope threat is upon us and upon our Holy Equations.

We are facing a proliferation of amateurs buying increasingly advanced telescopes. These high-resolution telescopes are now coming with built-in digital recorders and these images are transmittable at one click over the net, along with any conclusions a crackpot chooses to attach to such observations.

The cause of this telescopes fad actually is the widespread admiration for physicists and for the Holy Equations. Every home wants a computer, and these keep getting more powerful. Now they want telescopes in their homes too, and more and more advanced ones because such telescopes have become a status symbol for families who wants to provide their children the strongest path to becoming a physicist.

And we have these two companies competing to offer higher and higher resolution home telescopes at affordable prices. They are making a fortune from the sheer sales volume resulting from this spreading hobby. We have met with them and money is all they care about. Both are gleefully running advertising campaigns showcasing home telescopes that are more and more powerful.

“We have a duly certified report that terrorists are using advanced telescopes to try and plan bringing down our satellites. We will be sharing this with the telescope companies. Given that this is a terror-prevention initiative, they will no longer mass-market telescopes with endlessly increasing resolution. You will need an institutional permit to buy higher-end telescopes – means only authorized professionals will have advanced telescopes. Further, we will track each such advanced telescope and keep watch on who is using it for what. We will also slow down overall advancement of all telescope technology, expect for our big telescopes we have up in space. We are forming a telescope task-force and will be ready for quick action on any observation should such need arise.

“I have been quiet today and for many previous meetings. I now have had enough. I quit this Church committee and I quit physics. I had suggested in private discussions that failed old religions who mocked us for not having any permanent truths actually trapped us. Because not having fixed truths was a good thing until we took the absolute stand before the world that the Holy Equations were true and forever – because of all the experimental confirmations.

“But now I realize that we trapped ourselves by having completely thoughtless and arrogant fools speak for us at the time of struggle for power with the old religions. Our idiots blabbered anything and their words are set in stone now. They are exactly like all of you, and this is not surprising because you emulate your heroes who got us into this mess. I believe you are your own biggest enemies and nothing can save the Church of Physics from you.

…Many years later…

Bishop-Level Closed Meeting. Agenda: Installing an authority at the Super Machine project who will deliver the needed experimental data interpretations and provide the basic expected experimental conclusions.

“We have to show regular progress on the new universe project, the people of Venuts are very enthusiastically waiting for big news.

“Why do we not have a conclusive step-by-step success time-table ready to convey to the public?

“The director of the project is at fault. With a super machine project like this, there are two sides to interpreting the data and he listens to both sides. Thus we are going nowhere.

“We need to announce that we have found what we were expecting, we are spending large public money.

“His report is that we have data but does is it actually show what we were predicting? We are only asking for the basic expected confirmations, and even that he will not deliver.

“A change of director can give us the interpretation that it was a successful verification, and the new boss can also weed out those scientists who dissent.

“I just met the director and he has changed, it seems power has corrupted him. He is no longer the team-player we knew and is on a scientific integrity streak. Perhaps he is reading too many of the books about scientific ideals written by our physicists. To counter my arguments he actually quoted one of these writings to me. His thinking has crossed the line and he no longer understands that such writings are for public consumption and not for professionals.

“In his old age he has become naïve, to put it mildly. A change of director is absolutely needed. But we can't just replace him. He wants the job, and he is a hot head who will throw a fit. But I believe, we have an alternative solution, yes?

“We have a solution. We can make him an offer that will make him a very happy man, and make him want to leave and get back to the work he did before he became director of our project. We have already performed an experiment that relates to his research before he took over as director of new universe project. The data from this experiment can be interpreted to show that the theory extension that he has predicted all his life is correct. He leaves the project, and goes back to the university with his head in the clouds and lives happily till he dies. It will also give him a chance to go on a lecture tour and listen to himself talk, which he enjoys so much. After he dies we redo the experiment and apply the more rigorous interpretation which shows that he was actually wrong.

“There is no life after death, we all know that. So his success is complete, we have given him everything. And we get a new director who interprets data in the proper scientific manner it should be interpreted based on the theories we are looking to confirm, and also cleans out the dissenters who have the current director’s ear.

“What we physicists of the Church of Physics do, we do for the good for all humankind. We have saved Venuts from religious dogma and myths – and most particularly from the God concept – which were all false nonsense that dominated the planet since human civilization began. Unlike the old religions, what we state as being fact we will always provide experimental verification for!
Preview of Chapter 4, Part C: Story of Holy Equations of Fictional Planet Venuts. How the Church of Physics Came to Power on Venuts: Victory of the concept of Experimentally Verified Religion
Planet Venuts had settled down to two major religions, along with several smaller ones. The founders of early physics considered religion to be an “unnecessary evil” and also founded militant atheism. Their  atheist Church did not succeed in getting too many followers. Many of the founders of this new church concluded that people wanted the words Sacred and Holy in their lives. The term “Holy Equations” was coined by a group of physicists but that came under extreme criticism from the two major religions as well as the founders of the  atheist church, and the term was abandoned.

...Many years later…

While not a serious challenge to two major religions, the  atheist Church – which operated under the control and influence of physicists and other scientists – became the fastest growing religion among the other smaller religions.

...Many years later…

Physicists and biologists, buoyed by the new Theory of Evolution renewed their attack on religion with great fervor. They introduced the concept of physics equations being holy with the leadership proclaiming: “Only truth is holy, physics is experimentally verifiable truth. Religion is a story and is fiction because there is no God. All miracles of religion are, by the truth that is physics, impossible and false.” The  atheist church became Venuts' third-largest religion. It began to be called the “Church of Physics and Other Sciences” and proclaimed itself the “Only Experimentally Verifiable Religion.” The term “Holy Equations” began seeing common use. The  atheist church was becoming more and more aggressive in publicly attacking the concept of God and the God-centered religions.

…Many years later…

Radioactive “dirty bomb” contaminated the holiest site of one of the two main religions, seemingly done by a fanatic of the other major religion. Riots occurred all over the world between the two leading religions. Venuts was in crisis like they had never seen. The question of religion and its harm to society became the primary open debate. Physicists appealed to the mass public: “The Holy Equations of space, time and gravity are the experimentally verifiable universal truth. Venuts must no longer embrace falsehoods.” The word “experimentally verifiable truth” was the  atheist church’s popular slogan and the church adopted the short name: “Church of Physics.”

The Church of Physics was way ahead of the traditional religions in using new media. They were very successful in framing into the minds of Venutsians the horrifying images and videos of deaths and carnage of religious riots with the words “Never Again” superimposed. The appeal sent out by the Church of Physics that it was time to shun traditional religion and save Venuts was winning mass converts from the two major religions.

…Many years later…

The Church of Physics' proclamations of “truth” come under attack by the God-believing churches, with the Bishop or Emor (also called the Pope), in a speech watched live across the planet, proclaiming: "Physics wanders from one theory’s wrong equations to another and cannot be claimed to have found any truth. It is all just mis-steps in the dark. So it is not truth. There is no physics formula that is true, nor will there ever be!"

Professor M, the greatest living physicist, delivered the official rebuttal: “After physics theories reach their mature forms, their equations represent permanent accomplishments. Our Holy Equations are permanent and final equations, as verified by every experiment ever done.”*
(*The first sentence of quote is adapted from article on physics by physicist Steven Weinberg of planet Earth.)

Editorials in various media provided further arguments supporting physicists. They explained to the public in words like these: Even the old equations connecting gravity and time were permanent in that the new equations limit down to the old ones, so that rule of limiting down to was obeyed and connected the old equations to the new ones. This change to New Equations happened because of the new experimental fact that speed of light remains constant no matter what speed the observer is moving at. However, that stage is now over and we are at a much higher level of sophistication and experimental verification of the foundations. There is no possibility of such new fact coming along to make us change the foundational equations again – not even a new case of limiting down remains possible.

New attacks from the old religions were aimed at specifics of the Holy Equations of space, time and gravity: “The greatest miracle claimed by any religion is never-seen Length Contraction which is part of the Holy Equations.” Physicists hit back: “The religions preach false miracles, and their miracles are performed by God. In time even our Length Contraction will be verified just as Time Dilation has been. But the existence of their God has never been verified, nor will it ever be.” In their coverage most of the media dismissed attacks on the Holy Equations as attacks on truth; the old religions increasingly began to accuse the media of bias, but the press countered that they are committed only to truth.

The Church of Physics was increasingly converting media persons, who would become core supporters and apostles. Media was increasingly recruiting  atheist “intellectuals” who understood and could explain the wonder of the Holy Equations and their experimentally verified status to the masses.

…Many years later…

With most riots now over, Venutsians were thinking that the the planet would settle back to normalcy and nightmare was over – they did not realize that it had not even begun. The other major religion's holy sites were made radioactive too – it was “revenge” and “evened out the field”. Venuts faced decades of wars between nations and civil wars within nations. People were becoming increasingly wary of the religion.

Militant atheism was now leading the daily news and the Church of Physics was looming as the promise of the future. All mainstream media outlets, and even most of the independent ones, agreed that the domination of the old religions was on its way out. Expert media persons regularly delivered the message that the days of believers of one “myth” killing believers of another “myth” were over. The people of Venuts were being increasingly persuaded via various public channels to abandon the old religions and their myths, and to embrace Church of Physics as the Experimentally Verified Religion. More and more people were beginning to agree that religion was an “unnecessary evil” which has brought devastation to humanity.

The Experimentally Verified Religion had no prayers because physics had explained how the universe came into being. They had ruled out a Creator and had shown no possible mechanism could exist for a God to control anything. School teachers and school children, who had in large numbers become members of the Church of Physics, launched militant protests against prayers in schools. All schools abandoned the practice of prayers. A new “objectivity” was taking over education and “myth” was put into their books when discussing the old religions.

…Many years later…

Physicists announced that with their mastery and experimental verification of the cosmology which flowed from the Holy Equations they could now create a universe. They had “experimentally verified” the various steps and now needed to combine them into one process. They called this new universe-to-be: Heaven. A wave of shock struck planet Venuts and slowly transformed into awe.

The news was – according to agreement between the media and the Church of Physics – transmitted to even the remotest tribes on Venuts; all old religion was now facing the wonder of a new and objective religion that would actually create Heaven.

Church of Physics journals published papers about the New Universe project and these become the most cited papers. People working on this research were declared to be the best minds in physics, and they rigorously fine-tuned each other’s papers on creating a new universe founded on the Holy Equations. The media transmitted these to the general public with great enthusiasm, and admiration of the Church of Physics reached a new frenzy.

…Many years later…

Church of Physics was now the leading religion on Venuts.

Physicists – members of the Church of Physics – became the most powerful people on Venuts and their arrogance touched the stars. Based on their influence most people now felt that there was no need for God. Those clinging to the God-believing religions were considered to be less intelligent; almost no one with a college degree believed in God. Holiness was now considered to be in the equations of physics which, given the experimental proof, were accepted to be highest truth of the universe. Physicists were well on their way to using the Holy Equations to create Heaven. The Super Machine that would create Heaven was the most important news story, year after year, with “objective” experts being brought on by the news-makers to verify the progress all along the way. The people of Venuts had full faith – based on experimental evidence they closely followed – that the Church of Physics was well on its way to deliver them to Heaven.

The geniuses who published highest-impact physics papers building on the founding Holy Equations – “impact” being measured by how many Church of Physics professors citied the published papers in their own papers – were the most celebrated people on Venuts. Extravagant stage performances combined song, dance and special-effects to showcase their work and allowed them to humbly explain how their success resulted from their standing on the shoulders of the giants who formulated the Holy Equations. The grandness and brilliance of the shows put up by the Church of Physics dwarfed all other performances on Venuts.

Many Bishops of the old churches were overwhelmed and, one by one, became atheists who openly subscribed to the doctrines of the Church of Physics. Their major spokesperson dumped the old Church during live broadcasted debate, cursed God-worshipping religions, and apologized for deceit and destruction that religion had brought to Venuts.

Not considering the leaders of the old religions to any longer be a challenge to their rapid takeover of Venuts, the  atheist Church of Physics issued direct challenges to the God of the old religions through prominent advertisements. One such challenge ran:
“Believers in God are now the laughing stock of Venuts! This planet no longer believes in stories of God-empowered alleged messiahs, representatives, and miscellaneous miracle-workers. Truth now rules on Venuts!"
“Dear God of the old religions who never was – if you do exist then appear and correct us or show a miracle.” And a list of possible miracles was suggested.
“We know how to create a universe and thus Venuts no longer requires a creator God. Signed – The Creators”
It carried signatures of thousand leading Church of Physics professors who were working on creating the new universe.
Back to Chapters Preview

Back to Top

 

Emails from Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft show blatant continued evasion that should make one question whether the confidence in Special Relativity arises from scientific methodology or from evasion of theoretical and experimental science (also includes correspondence with his two Relativity-Defending Internet Partners)

 (Note this section was sent as a PDF attachment to my Dec 2015 Email to sent to those teaching Special Relativity and to Breakthrough Junior Prize officials. That PDF is available below).

Evasion of experimental and theoretical problems with Special Relativity is not scientific behavior and the cause of this departure from science is because Special Relativity has become a religion.

Many physicists would express pain and disappointment at Special Relativity being called a religion; however, I do not make this claim frivolously. I have come to understand this after 10 years of struggle, and in this spirit are my below email exchanges and notes. I have exhausted all avenues in these years, a recent one being Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to whom I wrote in Dec 2014:  "We have here a case of science being run by blind faith in the accepted theory, with journals having the job of blocking challenges to this worshipped theory. Something needs to be about this."

Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft is, in my opinion, a devout worshipper of Special Relativity and below are his repeated evasions;  those who are not blind relativity-worshippers should be able to see that evasions is all they are.

The below Nov 2015 email exchange was not the first time Gerard 't Hooft has evasively dismissed by paper. Excerpt from his previous evasion is below; see full details of this evasion here.

Excerpt from Nov 2014 report written by 't Hooft as Referee and Editor, Foundations of Physics:

"The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his/her work relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of Foundations of Physics. This is displayed by a lack of references to recent literature."

To which I responded:

"Professor 't Hooft - The most recent reference mentioned in my submitted paper was the 2010 Quasars paper, where quasars are not showing Time Dilation.  There should have been vigorous discussion of this experimental failure of Special Relativity in physics journals. But since today's editors and authors are relativity-worshippers there is no such discussion."

 

Gerard 't Hooft below was replying to this email which was sent in Nov 2015 to those teaching Special Relativity and to others. It was copied to Nobel Prize winners Steven Weinberg, Gerard 't Hooft and Frank Wilczek.

 

From: "Hooft, G. 't (Gerard)" 
To: Ashish Sirohi 
Date: Wednesday, November 25, 2015

Subject:
Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity


At the risk of running into eternal arguments, which is the usual thing that happens when discussing with confused outsiders, let me explain to you what you did wrong:

If you read the text books carefully, they also explain that if you perform two Lorentz transformations in succession, you should again get a Lorentz transformation. The complete invariance group contains not only Lorentz transformations in the  z -direction, but also in the x- and the y-direction, and in addition the rotations. You have to check them all.
Your "modified" Lorentz transformation contains an extra factor Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Now if I carry out two transformations, one with velocity v and one with velocity  -v  in the z direction, you get that factor squared.
That's a scale transformation.
Now the velocity of light is invariant under scale transformations, but the laws of physics are not: atoms have a definite size, clocks go with fixed speeds, and so on.
So you have to ask for a transformation rule that will always go to itself when you apply two transformations in succession.
Your transformation fails this test.
Nothing in special relativity has to be rewritten.

Actually the biggest mistake you made is to think that physicists would not have noticed such a flaw. If you knew a bit more mathematics you would have understood that physicists don't make the kind of mistakes you accuse them of.
Most of my colleagues refuse to even talk with people who think like you do.

Hope that helps.

G. 't Hooft

 

From: Ashish Sirohi 
To: "Hooft, G. 't (Gerard)"
Date: Wednesday, November 26, 2015
Subject: Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity


You say: Your "modified" Lorentz transformation contains an extra factor Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

My equations are in Section 1,2,4 of the paper which I attach again. Those equations do NOT have any Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) factor at all. (You are taking equations from Section 6, which section was only for comparison with the foundations of the Lorentz transformations.)

You say: Actually the biggest mistake you made is to think that physicists would not have noticed such a flaw. If you knew a bit more mathematics you would have understood that physicists don't make the kind of mistakes you accuse them of.

You assume based on faith that a challenge must be trivial. Your above assumption that this is about factor Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is because you cannot face reality and are avoiding Sections 1-4 of the paper. 

Max Planck gave us the truth about physicists of his time: "making them see the light" is futile. They die clinging to dogmas. But at least they understood what truth they are rejecting. 

You are so religious and dogmatic in your worship of relativity that you will dismiss, without properly reading, anything that does not support your beliefs. You write to me without addressing the actual equations I gave in my paper. You will not even properly read a paper that challenges your dogma? Responsibility to at least properly read before dismissing should be a minimum requirement for someone who is also an Editor of a science journal.

Please properly read the paper and address the equations. But why should you waste your time? Your faith can never be defeated by science. You will again tell me that Section 6 are my Equations and I am being trivial. 

If you choose to properly read my paper, then can you answer plainly answer this question (which Editors and Referees have refused to answer for 10 years): Does the paper give a counter-example to Einstein's derivation that Special Relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations?

 

 

From: "Hooft, G. 't (Gerard)"
To: Ashish Sirohi
Date: Friday, November 27, 2015

Subject:
Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Searching for statements that seem to make sense I found those only at the end of this narrative. That those are wrong was easy to see. The rest was too incoherent for me to comprehend. What you call dogma is just rigorous mathematical deduction. It is a misconception often encountered in lay people that relativity theory results from arguments of the sort one finds in popular science books. It doesn't. Relativity is a rigorous mathematical property of transformations called group theory (look up Lorentz group in google). Groups have properties that one has to respect or reject completely, this has nothing to do with religion or worship, which are notions we don not allow to enter in our way of doing science.

But I don't intend to continue this kind of discussion.

G. 't H

 

From: Ashish Sirohi 
To: "Hooft, G. 't (Gerard)"
Date: Friday, November 27, 2015

Subject:
Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

You say: Relativity is a rigorous mathematical property of transformations called group theory.

The derivation that Special Relativity's postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations is wrong, and this is shown by the counter-example I have provided in my paper. If Special Relativity was rigorous in its derivation then I would not have been able to find a counterexample to the derivation, would I?

What about the Quasars Failure of Special Relativity? 

You do not seem willing to address these scientific matters.

The only science argument you have made is about Sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) factor which point, as explained in my previous email, did not even address the specifics. 

Max Planck (see previous email) was right, wasn't he? 

"We don't really replace theories, we expand on them." - Gerard 't Hooft
(And in expanding on them you will ignore/evade counterexamples and experimental failures) 

 

 

From: "Hooft, G. 't (Gerard)"
To:
Ashish Sirohi
Sent:
Friday, November 27, 2015
Subject: Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

 The very last time:

 1. The extra requirement needed (and the good text books do make remarks about this issue) is that nature's invariance group does not include scale transformations. Your "counter example" leads to scale transformations.
2. Quasars obey general relativity, not special relativity

G. 't H

 

 

Since 't Hooft seemed hostile to continued communication I did not reply further. These are the scientific facts:

1. Scale transformation (also called a "dilation transformation") refers to a transformation leading to dilation (contraction). Since my equations do not have any dilation 't Hooft's argument does not apply (it applies for him only because even after my pointing, see my above emails to him, he will not address my specific equations).

2. Cause of Quasar Luminosity may have to do with gravitation theory (General Relativity being the accepted theory today), but correlation between quasars redshift and timescales is purely Special Relativity. 't Hooft is evading this, it seems he will not address the Special Relativity quasar anomaly.

As for ‘t Hooft’s point on groups and symmetry, what are physicists going to do with groups derived from the Lorentz transformations if these transformations are not correct in the physical world? Symmetries and groups can be rebuilt based on what is true in the physical world. Devastating as it may be, physicists will have to stop building on what groups and symmetries they have come to mathematically admire, and stick to physics of the actual physical world.

 

Gerard 't Hooft  runs webpages, http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101  and http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html  where he endorses and links to two other professors, Warren Siegel and  John Baez, who, like him, dismiss all who challenge Special or General Relativity as being crackpots or quacks. Warren Siegel of replied to the same mail 't Hooft  replied to. The other, John Baez, did not accept my special invite to reply.

 

 

From: Warren Siegel
To: Ashish Sirohi

Date:
 Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Subject: Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

 

Maybe you have used too weak a definition of special relativity.

One that is sufficient for most purposes is that the only observer-independent quantity relating 2 spacetime events in terms of position & time, due to Minkowski, is

c²(t-t')² - (x-x')² - (y-y')² - (z-z')²

Lorentz transformations leave this quantity invariant, but are a less useful way to state this result.

I see nothing in your theory that requires something as difficult & inaccurate to observe as quasars to test it.

In fact, the theory of quasars requires understanding of astrophysics & cosmology, theories that are much less well verified than special relativity, so those theories would be modified well before special relativity.

You might as well say that because your car broke down a year before you expected it to that Newton's laws are invalid.

Special relativity has been proven in the extreme situations of particle accelerators, where massive particles travel @ close to the speed of light, & behave similarly to light under even those conditions.

Special relativity has been verified to 12 decimal places by measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment.

This is the most accurate verified prediction in all of science.

It requires Lorentz invariance for both light & massive particles.

In that light, it's hard to see how teaching Lorentz transformations could be "unethical".

If you want to throw out Lorentz invariance, you must replace it with something that still agrees to 12 decimal places.

--

 

There were several other emails exchanged with Professor Siegel between November 25 and December 2, 2015. I give excerpts below. You can read full-text here.

 

From Ashish Sirohi to Warren Siegel (Excerpts)

You say: In that light, it's hard to see how teaching Lorentz transformations could be "unethical".

I never said the above. I said: 
However, the Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations that you teach to students is based on unstated and incorrect assumptions. Given that attached counter-example to the derivation exists it would be unethical for you to continue to teach an incorrect derivation.

--

You have to address my paper and tell me what is wrong with it. You (and Minskowski) are looking for transformations between coordinates. 

 --

In general Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, Minkowski, all start with this wrong conclusion: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there existed formulas (coordinate transformations) by which distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers.

--

In fact starting with velocity is the deliberate approach of my paper. Why this approach? Because the second postulate is about the speed of light and my paper explains why light is seen at same speed by all observers (without deriving this from distance and time formulas).

 

 

From Warren Siegel to Ashish Sirohi (Excerpts)

Special relativity is not about just velocity.  Velocity is derived from coordinates.  Velocity is the time derivative of spatial position, so you can't even discuss velocity without first discussing space and time position.

--

Velocity is DEFINED in terms of space & time.
Do you know what a definition is?

--

Minkowski starts with the Minkowski metric.
All of special relativity follows from there.

--

Those 2 postulates are insufficient to define special relativity as it is understood today.

-- 

 

Comments on above email exchange with Professor Siegel

Professor Siegel gives me his dogma that because Einstein (and Minkowski) did not approach the matter directly with velocity, it is not acceptable for me to start with velocity. He says velocity is defined in terms of distance and time, and pretends that by stating this he is making some logical argument against my approach. Pretending is enough to defend Special Relativity, as is evasion, because relativity-worshippers can say they explained it but crackpots did not understand. Relativity-worshippers have set up a system whereby they are able evade specifics of scientific challenges and lump all of them as crackpot challenges.

Professor Siegel starts by listing experiments. Since my equations are consistent with the postulates of Special Relativity as well as its momentum-energy equations, all experimental tests of these also confirm my equations. They differ on length contraction (never experimentally tested) and in approach to time dilation (though my equations also have different observers measuring different times).  Professor Siegel does not seem to realize that Quasars cannot just be made consistent with Special Relativity by adjusting something (see my ‘t Hooft note above). In fact, it is for this reason that Quasars Failure of Special Relativity’s Time Dilation is not addressed in popular books and articles written by sophisticated relativity-worshippers . For the same reason, their beloved publications such as Nature and Science, which are always competing to religiously further experimentally confirm special and general relativity, have never acknowledged this experimental shortcoming of Special Relativity. If Special Relativity was science and not religion then acknowledging and addressing its experimental failure would be of key importance.

Siegel suggests that Minkowski somehow had the mathematics correct, even if Einstein didn’t have a valid derivation; in my opinion Siegel is grasping for straws. But let Siegel at least first clearly accept (and put on his ‘t Hoof t–recommended website) that my counterexample shows that Einstein was wrong in thinking that he had a derivation of the Lorentz Transformations.

(You can read full-text of email exchange with Professor Siegel here.) 

 

John Baez the greatest and most prolific crackpot

John Baez was among the group I sent my above Nov 2015 email to, and I sent him below extra invite twice, requesting any comments.

Dear Professor Baez,

I have known you over the years, starting from the Usenet physics groups and have admired your expertise and energy in addressing claims that Special Relativity is wrong; most of these were were that the second postulate is not correct (and I have always agreed with you regarding that claim being total nuisance).

Would you be kind enough to use your sagacity to address this paper? Again, the postulates of Special Relativity are, of course, correct and the paper does not doubt this.

And I promise this one won't be as easy for you to debunk, so may be worth a look. You will find me highly receptive to your valid arguments. It will also help in my not continuing to waste other physicists' time.

If you are convinced that Special Relativity is right and you can defend it you should rise to have a rebuttal to this. (If your faith in Special Relativity results from avoiding scientific facts, as some have claimed, then ignore this too).

Your time and help would be much appreciated.

--

John Baez did not accept my invite. As above email says, the expertise and energy he has shown in addressing various misconceptions about Special Relativity are admirable. However, I have known his blogs/postings and websites and I give below my opinion of these.

John Baez is a relativity-worshipping crackpot professor who has been misleading students and fellow scientists regarding the experimental status of Special Relativity. Professional crackpots like him, who work with the endorsement and support of physics authorities, have been a large cause of the misinformation among scientists regarding the experimental and theoretical status of Special Relativity and General Relativity. The deceit (or incompetence) at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html (gleefully endorsed and hosted by Baez, and written by his fellow crackpots, Tom Roberts and Siegmar Schleif ) has personally misled me. This list also has compilation of lists by other experts (books and articles chosen by these relativity-worshippers) that have all avoided mentioning quasars failure; list does select two quasars observations that they find useful. This list stopped being updated after 2007, but Quasar violations of Special Relativity go back to 2001, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/320683/fulltext/. In internet forums and pre-internet Usenet Baez has often used this deceitful/incompetent list to advance his relativity-worshiping cause and to dismiss all who challenge Special Relativity as being crackpots. The moral is: Never expect a relativity-worshipping crackpot professor like Baez to properly do a scientist's job by at least having facts correct regarding experimental status.

Amateurs reading popular books, watching a science program/recording, browsing science on the net etc. can have ideas and dreams of grandeur for their idea; many physicists lump all of them together under the term "crackpots".  But they are relatively okay because they do not have to adhere to professional standards and responsibility. However, there perhaps can be no greater crackpot than a professor who provides and uses a compilation that, as a result of blind faith and/or incompetence, spreads misinformation on experimental status throughout the world. Adding this measure of deceit/professional-incompetence to allotment of crackpot index points should, I believe, give Professor John Baez the highest points, which means he may be one of the greatest crackpots ever! (Tom Roberts, Siegmar Schleif, and others should join Baez in this honor  but, in their favor, they have not been touting this compilation to attack and call others crackpots). It is a sad state of affairs that so many pages about relativity (and these include published books and academic articles) give this link, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html, and continue to help the greatest and most prolific physics crackpot, John Baez, spread misinformation.


 (Above section was a PDF attachment to my Dec 2015 Email to sent to those teaching Special Relativity and to Breakthrough Junior Prize officials. Here is that attachment, Gerard t Hooft Nov 2015 Emails.pdf).

Book Preview
Back to Top

 

Why did Neal D. Walsch, author of the "Conversations with God" books trilogy have God confirm "General Theory of Relativity" as true?

God tells him (among other things about Relativity):

Your science has already proven this mathematically…

It was his General Theory of Relativity which expanded your modern day understanding of the co-relation between time and space.

Now, come across a “fold” in the fabric of space (Einstein and others believed such “folds” exist— and they were correct!) ...

God tells him about scientists:

When what a scientist does is not working, a scientist sets aside all of the assumptions and starts over.

If they conduct an experiment, and it succeeds, they simply show you what they’ve done. The results speak for themselves. So scientists are usually quiet types, not given to verbosity. It is not necessary. The reason for their work is self-evident. Furthermore, if they try something and fail, they have nothing to say.

Walsch has no idea of the evasion and suppression that relativity-worshipping science authorities (editors and powerful professors) practice. Based on the multitudes of books by scientists about how science works, he became convinced that scientists truly are objective. Then, inspired by the unanimous adulation of scientists for Relativity, he found it a safe bet to have God join the chorus and bestow divine confirmation upon Relativity!

But Walsch is an interesting study because he represents the views that have been imprinted on the public at large.

Neale D. Walsch, and the public at large, suffer from blind faith in scientists, who suffer from blind faith in Relativity.

We are here to try to ease the suffering of both groups.

Today's scientist, at least in physics, is required to to build on previous theories and never cross the line and try to refute them; for a physicist to state this truth would also be crossing a line. Those few physicists who have crossed such lines have not been treated well, and these cases have served as a warning to all would-be challengers.

Book Preview
Back to Top



 

Evasive and/or Scornful Referee Reports for my physics paper written by two Nobel Prize winners.

 

Excerpt from Referee report written by Nobel Prize Winner Professor Steven Weinberg as Referee, Editor Howard Georgi, Physics Letters B, (Apr 2005):
"He seems unaware that special relativity is actually one of the most thoroughly test [sic] theories in science, and he cannot just make up alternatives. The editor should decline to accept future submissions from this author, because this sort of nonsense is a waste of everyone's time."

So a full evasion and refusal to address specifics, and a lifetime ban from journal for questioning special relativity. See Full Referee Report.

My note to Professor Weinberg, see Letter.

Excerpt from Referee report written by Nobel Prize Winner Professor Gerard 't Hooft as Referee and Editor, Foundations of Physics (Nov 2014):
"The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his/her work relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of Foundations of Physics. This is displayed by a lack of references to recent literature."

So evasion and refusal to address specifics, and why should I penalized for what other authors are not doing? See Full Referee Report.

My note to Professor 't Hooft, see Letter.

Referee report written by Nobel Prize Winner Professor Steven Weinberg as Referee Physics Letters B, Editor Howard Georgi (Apr 2005)

 

My paper (with below letter) was submitted to Professor Howard Georgi, Editor, Physics Letter B on on April 14, 2005. The referee for the paper was Howard Georgi's friend Steven Weinberg.

Dear Esteemed Professor Georgi:
 
I would like to submit my paper entitled “Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light” for publication in Physics Letters B. I attach a Latex copy as file “Space Duality PLB.tex”. I also attach a PDF version of the same file.
 
I am aware of your interest in special relativity and related issues.
 
The paper accepts both the postulates of special relativity, but states that electromagnetic waves move continuously through space while mass moves discretely. Velocity addition rules for such motion are introduced, and from these the second postulate of special relativity is derived. Two ways in which the theory differs from special relativity is that it provides an explanation (by bringing in an actual infinity for speed of light) for why an observer cannot catch up to light and its motion equations do not contain any length contraction.
 
The presented theory gives mathematical equations and experiments to verify the predictions. Thus if your referee(s) would challenge it, they must do so by addressing these specifics rather than on the basis of their surprise and their bias in favor of the established theory. My theory presents an interesting alternative and I am therefore requesting speedy publication. I urge that the referee(s) be someone open to a new approach and not be a researcher whose work assumes general relativity to be true.
 
Thank you.
 
Regards,
 
Ashish Sirohi

 

Email from Howard Georgi, Editor, Physics Letters B, in response to my submission, April 25, 2005

I have received the report below on your manuscript.

I agree with the referee that your manuscript is not acceptable for 
Physics Letters B. Please do not resubmit it or submit other papers to 
PLB. I will not be able to aknowledge [sic] further submissions.

Howard Georgi

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Report:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

report on 10113

Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light

by Ashish Sirohi

There is no physics in this paper. The author seems to believe that his 
personal guesses about how to modify relativity are interesting, but 
most readers of PLB will not agree. He seems unaware that special relativity 
is actually one of the most thoroughly test [sic] theories in science, and he 
cannot just make up alternatives. The editor should decline to accept 
future submissions from this author, because this sort of nonsense is a 
waste of everyone's time.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

 

Report by Nobel Prize Winner Professor Gerard 't Hooft as Referee and Editor, Foundations of Physics (Nov 2014)

 

My paper (with below letter) was submitted to Foundations of Physics on Nov 4, 2014.

Dear Esteemed Professor Gerard 't Hooft,

The paper presents an alternative to a widely accepted theory – Special Relativity.

Special Relativity has had its first failure in that the study of timescales of quasar variability has yielded observational data that is inconsistent with special relativity's time dilation. Thus the apparent prohibition on publishing an alternative should now be lifted.

This paper was sent to journals in 2005. The equations given in the paper serve as a counter-example to the statement that special relativity's two postulates necessarily lead to the Lorentz transformations. Either I have a valid counter-example to Einstein's derivation or I don't. No editor was able to get me a referee report stating that I don't!

The paper was not published because physicists consider special relativity to have full experimental support and thus feel that there is no need to consider an alternative. Thus the alternative to special relativity presented in the paper was said to be "gratuitous" because there was "no evidence from nature" that special relativity might need to be replaced.

What has now changed is that experimental evidence against special relativity has emerged, and that evidence is perfectly in line with parts of special relativity that our paper considers incorrect. Details are in the abstract and in the full-text of paper.

This experimental evidence has also been discussed at many forums, see for example http://phys.org/news190027752.html

I entrust the matter to your good judgment and request quick publication.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi


Email from Gerard 't Hooft, Editor in Chief, Foundations of Physics, in response to my submission, Nov 18, 2014

Date:               18 Nov 2014

To:                   "Ashish Sirohi" as7y@yahoo.com

From:              "Gerard 't Hooft" foundations.of.physics@science.uu.nl

Subject:          Editor's decision on FOOP-D-14-00576

Dear Mr. Ashish Sirohi,

We have received your submission FOOP-D-14-00576 entitled
"
Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light".

Before entering a submission to the reviewing process, we check whether it obeys criteria such as the following:

- Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?

- Does the paper contain original ideas and new results?

- Are the arguments and calculations accurate and correct?

- Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and worded well?

- Does the overall quality agree with our very tough standards?

I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in

Foundations of Physics.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration.

With kind regards,

Gerard 't Hooft
E
ditor in Chief
F
oundations of Physics

Specific comments from a member of the Editorial Board:

The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his/her work relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of Foundations of Physics.

This is displayed by a lack of references to recent literature.

 

The Catch-All and Easy way to reject a physics paper that challenges established physics: "too speculative."
Nobel Prize Winner Professor Frank Wilczek demonstrates below.

Report by Nobel Prize Winner Professor Frank Wilczek as Referee and Editor, Annals of Physics (May 2005)

My paper (with below letter) was submitted to Annals Of Physics on May 2, 2005.

Dear Esteemed Professor Wilczek:

I would like to submit my paper entitled "Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light" for publication in
Annals of Physics. I attach a LaTex copy as file Space Duality AOP.tex I also attach a PDF version of the
same file.

The paper accepts both the postulates of special relativity, but states that electromagnetic waves move
continuously through space while mass moves discretely. Velocity addition rules for such motion are introduced,
and from these the second postulate of special relativity is derived. Two ways in which the theory differs from
special relativity is that it provides an explanation (by bringing in an actual infinity within the speed of light) for
why all moving observers see the same speed of light and the motion equations that naturally follow from these
velocity addition rules turn out not to contain any length contraction.

The presented theory gives mathematical equations and experiments to verify the predictions. Thus if your
referee(s) would challenge it, they must do so by addressing these specifics rather than on the basis of their
surprise and their bias in favor of the established theory or on some hurried general belief that special relativity is
fully verified. I urge that the referee(s) be someone open to a new approach and not be a researcher whose work
firmly assumes general relativity to be true.

I share your great admiration for the works of Albert Einstein. However, Einstein wrongly thought that his
equations are the only ones that can be shown to follow from his two postulates. My theory presents an interesting
alternative and I am therefore requesting speedy publication.

I am aware of your own views of the need to examine basic assumptions about space, time and distance.

Thank you.

Regards,
Ashish Sirohi


Email from Journal Administrator,
Annals of Physics, in response to my submission, May 2, 2005

Dear Dr. Sirohi,

Submissions are normally made through our publisher, Elsevier, via the submission tool at their site: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aop and I look forward to receiving your paper through that site. I will log your
ms. and assign a number, however, so that if you prefer to wait to do this until Prof. Wilczek had made a decision regarding publication, you may do so.

Cordially,

Eve Sullivan for ANNALS OF PHYSICS


Email from Journal Administrator,
Annals of Physics, in response to my submission, May 21, 2005

Dear Dr. Sirohi:

The editor has reviewed your paper and finds it to be too speculative.
Thank you for having given us the opportunity of considering it. There
is no further report. We appreciate your interest in our journal.

Yours sincerely,

Eve Sullivan, for the Editors of ANNALS OF PHYSICS


Book Preview
Back to Top

Breakthrough Junior Prize Winning student, indoctrinated by relativity-worshippers, doles out false fact and teaches this to millions on Youtube "So the relativity of time is a natural conclusion if you just combine the speed equation with the fact that light travels at a constant speed."  December 2015: Email to sent to those teaching Special Relativity and to Breakthrough Junior Prize officials

Subject: Breakthrough Prize Mistake Re: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Dear Physicist,

Continuing the email thread from Nov 2015 regarding Special Relativity, I again point out that academic integrity and public trust should prohibit you from teaching to students that Einstein had a derivation of the Lorentz Transformations (LT), let alone teach that derivation (or some other derivation of LT). The reason again is that you cannot logically or ethically teach a derivation to which a counterexample exists.

I have just viewed the travesty where Breakthrough Junior Prize winning student, indoctrinated by suppression and false teachings on parts of  physics authorities, shared a conclusion based on the reasoning used in Einstein's derivation of LT. Specifically, the student concludes, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYv5GsXEf1o at 6:54: "So the relativity of time is a natural conclusion if you just combine the speed equation with the fact that light travels with a constant speed." This illogical and false statement has been communicated by this video to millions; relativity-worshipping and truth-evading physics authorities have scored a great victory, with help from Breakthrough Prize, in using this new Public Relations (PR) tool for mass indoctrination of students.

I had stated in my previous email: The physics essence of the counter-example in one line is that the following statement seems logical but actually is NOT: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there existed formulas by which distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers.

Either I have a valid counterexample or I don't. The attached correspondence with Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft should serve to further convince you that, other than evasion, there is no challenge to the simple logic of the counterexample to Einstein's derivation.  Official evasions by Nobel Prize winners Steven Weinberg and Frank Wilczek are also on file at my below website.

Physics authorities want you to unquestioningly keep teaching what is put in front of you, but do they have a right to withhold facts from fellow physicists to keep them believing in and teaching Special Relativity? In fact, almost all professors and teachers of special relativity (and this email includes many of them) can testify that in all these years they had no idea of questions regarding theoretical basis (counterexample) or experimental basis (quasar failure) of Special Relativity. If such truth can be objectively documented then arises the question of whether it is evidence that today's physics authorities like to suppress and keep their professors/teachers ignorant of scientific facts that go against the Lorentz Transformations (LT), the Holy Equations of Special Relativity! 

I am also CC-ing this to the Breakthrough Junior Prize-winning student's teacher, Richard Nestoff, as well as Breakthrough Junior Prize Selection Committee: Nima Arkani-Hamed (who was already part of this email thread), Lucy Hawking, Salman Khan, Gary Ruvkun, Richard Taylor, Pete Worden.

Many of you receiving this and previous email are award-winning high-school science teachers and I urge you to reject teaching illogical conclusions such as "So the relativity of time is a natural conclusion if you just combine the speed equation with the fact that light travels with a constant speed " or other versions of this which spring from Einstein's faulty logic and/or unstated assumptions in his derivation of LT. Why should physics authorities, who perhaps absolutely control what a college professor teaches to students because they can have power over professors' careers, be allowed to exert similar control and make school teachers also teach what is false?

In an ideal world of objective science there should be no blind-faith science teachers who will teach whatever it put in front of them without having the curiosity to independently examine whether what they are teaching is actually correct and true.  This blind-faith submission to relativity-worshipping authorities by those who research or teach is the science-equivalent of historical "I was only following orders". Objective truth-seeking scientists internationally should unite to stop relativity-worshipping authorities using tax-payer money or private money (such as Breakthrough Prize) for their physics PR campaigns, including latest stunt via Youtube, whose aim is to continue to spread their deceitful claims about the "logic" of basis of LT and fairly tales of "passed all experiments with flying colors".

On a positive note, the authoritarian regime that has taken power in physics is not so bad. Just as other authoritarian regimes encourage many freedoms, the current physics authorities are not enemies of truth in all physics matters and can be relatively quite objective and open to challenges to other parts of physics; however they absolutely will NOT acknowledge problems with the theoretical or experimental basis for the Holy Equations of Special Relativity which are the foundations they have built on.

And yes, we do realize that we are nothing but a fly on an elephant's back. The reality is that no one can fight the relativity-worshipping physics establishment's PR machine working in physics today means worshipping relativity with the authorities and doing as they do. If physics authorities ignore a counterexample to Einstein's derivation then so does the rest of physics. As for quasars failure of Time Dilation formula the working physicist does not care either unless the authorities care; authorities can make any general statement that evades the specifics, or no statement at all, and that is enough.

Wishing you a Happy New Year!

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi
http://churchofphysics.org

P.S. Besides those who are involved in teaching Special Relativity, I have included in this email others who may have some interest in this matter.

Attachment sent with email: Gerard t Hooft Nov 2015 Emails

Book Preview
Back to Top

 

November 2015: Email sent to those teaching Special Relativity to correct two specific mistakes so as give students correct scientific information

Subject: Two Mistakes in your Lectures on Special Relativity

Dear Physicist,

I humbly request that you consider that there have been two mistakes in the lectures/notes that you have been delivering on Special Relativity.

The two mistakes are:

1. The postulates of Special Relativity are, of course, correct. However, the Derivation of the Lorentz Transformations that you teach to students is based on unstated and incorrect assumptions. Given that attached counter-example to the derivation exists it would be unethical for you to continue to teach an incorrect derivation.  I am not wasting your time with this claim. An actual and valid counter-example to Einstein's derivation has been achieved. In ten years of correspondence, no physics journal editor has been able to provide a referee report stating that it hasn't! And the referees-editors include three Nobel Prize winners (details below).

2. Special Relativity has failed Quasar experimental observations. Study of timescales of quasar variability has yielded observational data that is inconsistent with special relativity's time dilation. The attached paper also contains the citation to this Quasars Failure. Please mention this failure regarding the experimental status of Special Relativity so as not to continue to mislead students by stating that Special Relativity has been "confirmed by all experiments." 

Standing up for Academic Integrity needs courage, see http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/resources-2.php. I respectfully urge you to be courageous enough to objectively evaluate these two scientific truths, and to refuse to keep teaching to students what is scientifically incorrect (even if everyone else in physics is doing it).

If you think the information I am providing about the two mistakes is not correct please drop me a line because I have always appreciated wonderful professors like you, who have taught me all I know. I would be delighted to learn from you.

The physics essence of the counter-example in one line is that the following statement seems logical but actually is NOT: since speed=distance/time the only way speed of light would remain same when measured by different moving observers is if there existed formulas by which distance and time measurements changed between the reference frames of these observers.

I mentioned that the referees-editors, who have been unable to provide a single referee report stating my counter-example is not valid, include three Nobel Prize winners. The three are Steven Weinberg, Gerard 't Hooft and Frank Wilczek, and I am CC-ing this email to them. You can find the details of their actions as referee-editors at my below website. Physicists who continue to believe based on faith and refuse to acknowledge scientific facts are priests and not professors. It is for this reason that my website has this name.

I welcome any comments, suggestions and questions.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi
http://churchofphysics.org

P.S. Besides those who are involved in teaching Special Relativity, I have included in this email others who may have some interest in this matter.

Attachment sent with email: Paper - SR Discrete Nov 2015.pdf

Book Preview
Back to Top

November 2015: Email Sent to above two Nobel Prize winners regarding Quasar Suppression and regarding the Evasive and/or Scornful Referee Reports they wrote; letter also issues open challenge to them and informs them of this upcoming book. Copy to various Physics Professors and others.

Subject: Quasars Observations Suppression by Professors Steven Weinberg, Gerald 't Hooft and others – Failure of Special Relativity Time Dilation

Dear Esteemed Professors Weinberg and  't Hooft,

This is regarding Suppression of Experimental Truth and your subversion of Peer Review to block valid attacks on Special Relativity.  I am detailing two below specifics and more in book "Toppling Relativity:  My Struggle with the Church of Physics", see attached preview of book.

These are the two specifics:

1. Your Church of Physics has suppressed the published result that Quasars are not obeying Special Relativity's Time Dilation; despite being aware of the dangerous truth of Einstein’s quote that "a single experiment can prove me wrong" the two of you and your fellow relativity-worshipping physicists continue to repeat the misleading statement that Special Relativity has passed all tests.
2. Referee reports written by each of you regarding my attached paper evaded the specific matter of whether I have a valid counter-example to Special Relativity's 1905 derivation, and the reason for this evasion is that you see that I actually do have a counter-example. You also disingenuously refuse to address the low-cost experimental tests suggested which can further show that relativity is wrong.

Excerpt from Referee report written by Professor Steven Weinberg as Referee, Editor Howard Georgi, Physics Letters B (Apr 2005):
"He seems unaware that special relativity is actually one of the most thoroughly test [sic] theories in science, and he cannot just make up alternatives. The editor should decline to accept future submissions from this author, because this sort of nonsense is a waste of everyone's time."
So a full evasion and refusal to address specifics, and a lifetime ban from journal for questioning special relativity.
Professor Weinberg - I regret that you had to get angry enough as a referee to issue a ban on future submissions from me. Such bans in the world are often initiated by zealots and fundamentalists for insulting their religious faith. You have the power to rejecting the request for publication, which power the other religious zealots don’t always have because they are not consulted, but that power was not enough to satiate you. Also, can a mathematical counter-example to relativity’s derivation be so offensive that it makes you angry enough to issue an edict banning me; why not find a flaw in the technical arguments? It seems you, as leading authority of the relativity-worshipping Church of Physics, would dismiss all papers that that challenge relativity, calling these "nonsense" that needs to be banned, with no need to address specifics whatsoever. Do you or any of your colleagues even understand the mathematical derivation of  Special Relativity’s equations? Refute my counter-example to the derivation if you do.  As I said in my 2011 email regarding same paper (with "Religious Barriers" subject, and copied to large number of people): "You are defeated physicswise and won't address the specific physics matter." Evade and ban behavior of your Church of Physics perfectly matches the behavior of the traditional church when they were confronted with science that contradicted their incorrect teachings.

Excerpt from Referee report written by Professor Gerard 't Hooft as Referee and Editor, Foundations of Physics  (Nov 2014):
"The author of this manuscript fails to make clear how his/her work relates to current discussions in the foundations of physics. Regrettably, this fact places the current submission outside the scope of Foundations of Physics. This is displayed by a lack of references to recent literature."
So evasion and refusal to address specifics, and why should I penalized for what other authors are not doing?
Professor 't Hooft - The most recent reference mentioned in my submitted paper was the 2010 Quasars paper, where quasars are not showing Time Dilation.  There should have been vigorous discussion of this experimental failure of Special Relativity in physics journals. But since today's editors and authors are relativity-worshippers there is no such discussion. Being a scientist, I am not able to join the "current discussions" which you publish in your Church of Physics journals because joining such discussions would not be science but would amount to joining in your blind religious worship of relativity. Further, please get off the Relativity-Nazi authoritarian high horse at http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theoristbad.html, and if you are the intellectually honest relativity expert you claim to be then address the specifics of my paper rather than evade the physics.

Attached are two PDFs, one is my book about your Relativity-worshipping Church of Physics and the other is my paper. Full details are at my website http://churchofphysics.org.  

Here are 4 chapter headings from the book.
Chapter 2: Explaining the Continuous Triumphant Experimental Verifications of Relativity’s Time Dilation: Illogic of Experimental Conclusions Illustrated by the Story of Holy Equations of Fictional Planet Venuts, Where its Militant Church of Physics Used the Differentiation of Experimental Verification to Become the Leading Religion (chapter preview attached)
Chapter 15: The Church of Physics Subverts Peer Review to Remove Objectivity: Worship With Us and Experience Heaven on Earth, Challenge Us and Go to Hell
Chapter 16: Church of Physics Subverts Experimentation to Remove Objectivity: Making Pre-Determined and Unjustified Conclusions from Experiments and Observational Data, False Propaganda of Experimental Verification, Suppression of Inconvenient Experimental Results, and Avoidance of Experiments that Could Give Unwelcome Results
Chapter 17: Media Control Methodology of the Church of Physics: Keep Out Views of Those Who Would Question the Validity of Their Claims by Denouncing Them as Crackpots

Here is the Abstract of attached paper which you refereed (text may vary in version you refereed):
"Space is discrete for a moving mass and continuous for an electromagnetic wave. We introduce velocity addition rules for such motion, and from these we derive the second postulate of special relativity – namely, that each observer measures the same value of the speed of light. We contrast the distance-time implications of our velocity addition rules with the Lorentz transformations. Our theory leads to different time measurements by observers and to special relativity's momentum-energy formulas. However, in our theory length of an object remains invariant, and we do not have a time dilation formula that applies between inertial frames. Study of timescales of quasar variability has yielded observational data that is inconsistent with special relativity's time dilation. We suggest three other experiments which will give results inconsistent with special relativity's predictions."

As Max Planck said: Science progresses funeral to funeral because "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."  And in today's world all physicists – young and old – are relativity-worshippers, who will refuse to address any facts that cast doubts on relativity. Max Planck would have agreed that under above circumstances "truth does not triumph" in science since believers in relativity won’t die soon (because the youngest are also firm believers in relativity and therefore opponents to an alternative). But what makes the situation in physics really terrible is that, unlike in Max Planck’s time where there was freedom to dissent from authority, today the Church of Physics has subverted peer review to remove any alternative that challenges the foundations from even being published, let alone being discussed. So that should mean that the Church of Physics has nothing to worry about – you have defeated science because the world will only read your truth-suppressing Church of Physics books and journals.

But we know from quantum mechanics that, despite what is almost certain to happen, even an extremely low probability event can actually occur. Therein lies the danger to your Relativity-worshipping, Truth-Suppressing Church of Physics.

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi
http://churchofphysics.org

Attachments sent with email: Paper - SR Discrete Nov 2015.pdf,     Book Preview Nov 2015.pdf   (Book Preview 2017.pdf is what we suggest you download, and thus get updated preview, instead of downloading Book Preview Nov 2015 attachment)

Book Preview
Back to Top


Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) unable to address the issue of Evasion by Physics journals.

Among the foundational beliefs of Modern Physics, Special Relativity stands out as being the one which today's physicists have religion-like absolute faith in and consider to be beyond a shadow of doubt. Today's best-known physicists have such personal faith in Special Relativity that their entire life's work has been on the assumption that it is true, much of it building on work of previous generations who shared the same faith.  Today's physicists do not tolerate challenges to Special Relativity; to them it is sacred truth and they will ignore, evade, suppress, mock, angrily dismiss, or ban any physics that questions this faith. This is not objective or scientific behavior; however, the nature of science is variable and whether a science field behaves in an objective or scientific manner depends on those who rule in the field at the time. Physics journals' evasion culture exists because this strategy is as dictated by relativity-worshipping physics authorities. Freedom to question and refute the foundations of relativity has no place in today's authoritarian world of relativity-worshipping physics. A more mundane additional reason also emerges for physics journals evading my paper having bet on special relativity being right, truth would devastate physics and devastate the personal life-work of current physics authorities.

 

Again: My paper points out that Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Derivation was based on Unstated Assumptions, Invalidates that "Derivation" with an actual counter-example, and gives correct space and time equations. My paper also notes the Quasars are not obeying Special Relativity's Time Dilation, and suggests three other low-cost experiments will give results inconsistent with special relativity's predictions. How much simpler in its thesis and in its invite to find a flaw in the technical arguments could a paper be?

 

Starting January 2005, my paper with the same space-time equations (but changes in text/sections between versions) was submitted to many journals, and rejected by all, mostly with no attempt to have the paper refereed or to address the merits of the paper. My old website has more details on this.

 

Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) has been talking a lot about addressing bias so I wrote to them about this bias: "Reason for rejection of my paper was bias arising from blind faith in Special Relativity, as a result of which alternatives to the theory cannot be published. Since the journal cannot openly state this reason, the paper was rejected without even a single line of specific reason being given."

 

I referred to them the September 2014 rejection by Physics Letters A, where Editor P.R. Holland rejected without giving any reason.

 

--------------

Dear Mr. Sirohi,

I regret that we cannot publish this work in Physics Letters A.

Yours sincerely,

P.R. Holland

--------------

 

I chose this journal to refer to COPE because Editor P.R. Holland previously replied in 2005, in response to my then submission for publication:

"I have read your paper with interest but regret that it is not suitable for publication."

The Editor had at least acknowledged "interest," so I hoped the Editor could be forthcoming in any discussion with COPE. That was not to be.

 

COPE says they cannot address the claim that Physics Journals will not publish papers questioning Special Relativity. They do not seem to be able to get details from  the physics journal to address if  the journal is violating their stated ethics. In fact COPE’s contribution may be negative in that they legitimize the truth-suppressing, relativity-worshipping physics journals as running ethical peer review; this legitimacy is established by the COPE stamp on the physics journal, whereby COPE is seemingly available to address any ethics issues. When an author makes the claim to COPE that a paper was rejected because of a specified unethical scientific bias and and wants the journal to give some reason for rejection, COPE cannot even ask the the journal  to give a specific reason for rejection. COPE is not transparent in that it does not announce that a physics journal’s affiliation does not mean the physics journal has to be ethical or scientific in its publication decisions. COPE likes to waste authors' time in having them contact COPE about bias in publication decisions.

 

http://publicationethics.org/files/Code%20of%20Conduct_2.pdf

3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s

importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the

journal.

 

 COPE talks a lot of publication ethics (see above example from their website), but such talk seems to be for public consumption, and gives the false impression that peer review has to follow ethical rules. It is unethical for a Committee like COPE to create such false public impressions.

 

 

My correspondence with COPE is below (latest first).


 

Subject:   Re: Concerns raised by Ashish Sirohi

 

From:        Iratxe Puebla (cope_assistant@publicationethics.org)

 

To:            as7y@yahoo.com;

 

Date:          Sunday, January 11, 2015

 

 

Dear Dr Sirohi,

 

I am writing in relation to your last correspondence about your submission to Physics Letters A.

 

As we have indicated previously, COPE cannot interfere with individual editorial decisions. This matter relates to the editor’s decision not to consider your submission, and as a result, falls beyond the situations that COPE can consider as a complaint.

 

If you have further concerns about this decision, these would need to be discussed directly with the editor.

 

With best wishes,

 

Iratxe Puebla

COPE Membership Assistant

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

www.publicationethics.org

 

Registered charity No 1123023

Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120

Registered office: COPE, 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 9HL, UK

 

  

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014, Ashish Sirohi <as7y@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Dear Iratxe,

 

I state again that the reason for rejection of my paper was bias arising from blind faith in Special Relativity, as a result of which alternatives to the theory cannot be published. Since the journal cannot openly state this reason, the paper was rejected without even a single line of specific reason being given. After the rejection I wrote to the journal that "Your apparent current policy of refusing to consider alternatives to Special Relativity should be abandoned, given the new­found experimental vulnerability of the theory." On appeal the journal was again not able to point to a single shortcoming in the paper, so they again they did not address the specifics at all. I reject that a "no comment" is allowed as a genuine resolution of appeal under these circumstances. Thus there was no genuine appeal procedure offered.

 

After my initial contact you had replied that "I am consulting with the Chair of COPE" [Virginia Barbour] and then  wrote to the journal, with copy to me. The journal replied that "the appeal process has already occurred" and "reason for [rejection] has already been explained to the author." I replied to COPE and countered this claim by the journal. Specifically I noted: "An Appeal has to address the specifics of the paper, no? Or just cut and paste about the journal is the resolution of the appeal?" COPE has the correspondence between me and the journal, and now accepts this claim by the journal that the appeal "occurred." From that correspondence, can COPE tell me what the journal's stated "reason" for rejection was, because the journal did not even give one even give word addressing the specifics of paper, let alone "explain" its rejection?

 

It is unfortunate that COPE has now endorsed this kind of appeal procedure where no reason at all for rejection of a paper need be given, and the original decision to not give a reason for rejection is reaffirmed on appeal. Just "appeal process has occurred" is enough, according to COPE.

 

COPE has determined that the case relates to "disagreement with the decision to reject the manuscript, and as a result, we feel that this case does not fall within the remit of what COPE can look into." My disagreement was with the journal's refusing to address the specifics of the manuscript and refusing to give any sort of reason for the rejection, and reason for such behavior is their bias. From this determination by COPE, it would follow that journals do not have to even bother to deny the allegation of bias. It would seem that even if they said plainly that "we will reject without comment any paper challenging Special Relativity because of our bias" and "that is why we rejected this paper," COPE would accept that because it is a matter of decision to reject and you do not interfere in that matter.

 

We have here a case of science being run by blind faith in the accepted theory, with journals having the job of blocking challenges to this worshipped theory. Something needs to be about this.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Ashish Sirohi

 

 

From: Iratxe Puebla <cope_assistant@publicationethics.org>

To: Physics Letters <phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk>

Cc: "Wetering, Karine van (ELS­AMS)" <K.Wetering@elsevier.com "Arasa Cid, Carina

(ELS­AMS)" <c.arasacid@elsevier.com Ashish Sirohi <as7y@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014

Subject: Re: Concerns raised by Ashish Sirohi

 

 

Dear Dr Holland,

 

 

Thank you for your reply to our email in relation to Ashish Sirohi’ submission to Physics Letters A.Our communication was aimed at seeking a clarification about the appeal process in place at the journal, and I thank you for your response.

 

 

As indicated in earlier correspondence, COPE does not interfere with specific editorial decisions, and thus we do not seek to get involved in your decision to reject Dr Sirohi's paper.

 

 

We understand that this case relates to Dr Sirohi’s disagreement with the decision to reject the manuscript, and as a result, we feel that this case does not fall within the remit of

what COPE can look into.

With best wishes,

Iratxe Puebla

COPE Membership Assistant

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

www.publicationethics.org

 

Registered charity No 1123023

Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120

Registered office: COPE, 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 9HL, UK


     Subject:   Re: Concerns raised by Ashish Sirohi

     From:       Ashish Sirohi (as7y@yahoo.com)

 

To:           phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk;  cope_assistant@publicationethics.org;

 

Cc:           K.Wetering@elsevier.com;  c.arasacid@elsevier.com;

 

Date:        Monday, December 8, 2014

   

Dear Iratxe,

 

In response to letter from Editor Holland, let me reiterate the facts already submitted to COPE. Putting these here so that the Journal can verify. Also attaching all these letters, which attachments were sent to COPE.

 

From my Email to COPE:

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

I attach these letters from Editor P.R. Holland and my letters to the Editor:

 

Letter from Holland Decision Reject Sep 9 (Paper rejected without even a single line of specific reason given.)

 

Letter  from Holland Sep 22 (Editor Holland consulted with Managing Editor Carina Arasa Cid, who is no expert of the paper topic ­ relativity. Then he wrote: "We have regretfully determined that this work does not satisfy the criteria for publication in Physics Letters A." Again, no addressing the merits of the paper or even giving a single line of specific reason.)

 

Letter to Holland Sep 26 (I wrote: "I look forward to hearing from you regarding options available to me at this point." "Please provide full options available to me regarding who I can appeal to regarding the ethics (or lack thereof) at Elsevier.") No reply from Editor.

 

Letter to Holland Sep 28 (I wrote: "I again reiterate that you are not following publication ethics guidelines, and give these guidelines and my comments." "I have been asking for options regarding who to appeal to and getting no response.") No reply from Editor.

 

Letter to Holland Oct 21 (I wrote: "Please explicitly state that I have no further avenues of appeal available so that I do not write again inquiring of same." "My next step would be to refer the matter to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), since all Elseviepublished journals are members of COPE. But they ask that options available within journal/publisher be exhausted first. Therefore, please confirm that there is no option or avenue remaining.") No reply from Editor.

 

As above, Editor Holland did not reply to my letters of Sep 26, Sep 28, or Oct 21, 2014.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

 

COPE asked me that besides my complaint to the Journal, have I lodged a complaint to the Publisher? Elsevier is a publisher that seems to be unapproachable, at least as far as this Editor and Journal is concerned. There is no appeal or complaint to the publisher possible at all. The Editors and Managing Editors of this journal do not respond to authors regarding the option of appealing or complaining to the publisher.

 

I ask COPE to please consider my letter of Sept 28, 2014 in which I quoted COPE Guideline for Editors, with my comments.

 

From my above mentioned Sept 28, 2014 Email:

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3.1. Editorsdecisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the papers importance, originality and clarity.

Comment: Based on this my paper should be highest priority for the journal.

 

3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.

Comment: A paper that is matches the criteria of importance, originality and clarity cannot be rejected without giving any reason whatsoever.

 

3.5. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. Comment: I have been asking for options regarding who to appeal to and getting no response.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

 

The Editor does not even attempt to say that that decision was based on criterion consistent with 3.1. In fact he says nothing at all ­­ Rejection without even at attempt to give a reason justifying the decision is the name of the game!

3.4, 3.5 and other guidelines are also being violated by Physics Letters A, as are many others listed in my Sept 28, 2014 letter.

 

Now the Editor says: "Indeed, you appear to have been misled: the appeal process has already occurred."

 

Wow, that is one secret process ­­ so covert that I was not even told that appeal process had "already occurred" until now when the Editor wrote to COPE. I was supposed to have inferred that it had "already occurred."

 

So the Editor now says that the Sep 22, 2014 Affirmation was a result of the Appeals process. Well, what an appeals procedure they have in place ­­ he consulted with the Managing Editor Carina Arasa Cid, who is no expert of the paper topic ­ relativity, and affirmed the Decision. Did the Editor even send to an outside expert or even to an inside expert, or does he not have to answer that? All he has to say this the process "occurred" and that is the Appeals Process. Is this kind of covert appeals procedure within COPE Guidelines?

 

The Editor further says:

"Rejection may not be a pleasant experience but to seek to turn our scientific decision into an issue of ethics is not acceptable. Your writing on the author's behalf will not change our decision: his paper will not be published in Physics Letters A. The reason for this has already been explained to the author."

 

So the editor claims that "reason for [rejection] has already been explained to the author." "Already been explained" ­­ and this was done without addressing the paper at all or giving even a single line of specific reason. Cutting and pasting yadda­yadda lines from the journal description is his explanation! An Appeal has to address the specifics of the paper, no? Or just cut and paste about the journal is the resolution of the appeal?

 

The reason for the Editor's strange behavior is stated in my above Sept 26, 2014 letter to the Editor:

"Physicists are in awe of Special Relativity, with levels ranging from reverence to religious worship, and have formed policies whereby alternatives to Special Relativity cannot be considered. Yes, modifications that limit down to

Special Relativity's equations can be considered for publication, but not an overthrow of its basics. Your apparent current policy of refusing to consider alternatives to Special Relativity should be abandoned, given the new­found experimental vulnerability of the theory."

 

The Editor, Journal, and Publisher are being evasive because of the above Unethical Bias, which bias they are trying to cover up and make it seem that all is normal. Blind worship of Special Relativity is neither scientific nor ethical, and the Editor's claims that a "scientific decision" and ethical decision was involved in the original decision and/or in the "appeal process" are false statements. The Editor, Journal, and Publisher have provided nothing to show that decision was a "scientific decision"; literally, not one line have they given to show this and they are being highly unethical in claiming that they have.

 

They editor suggests I have "misled" COPE. This is a highly misleading claim by the Editor. A further misleading claim by Editor is that this is about "chang[ing] their decision" and "will not change our decision"; this is a disingenuous attempt to evade addressing the ethical violations.

 

We urge COPE to not be misled and to help fight this evasion and lack of ethics.

 

Thanks and regards,

Ashish Sirohi

 


 

 

Subject:   Re: Concerns raised by Ashish Sirohi From: Physics Letters (phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk)

To:                   cope_assistant@publicationethics.org;

Cc:                   K.Wetering@elsevier.com;  c.arasacid@elsevier.com;  as7y@yahoo.com;

 

Date:                Friday, December 5, 2014

  

 

Dear  Iratxe Puebla

 

Thank you for your letter. We are of course committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in Physics Letters A and appreciate the work of COPE in assisting in that goal.

 

However, I am surprised you should write on behalf of the author in this case since no ethical issues are involved. Indeed, you appear to have been misled: the appeal process has already occurred. As I am sure you are aware, it is the Editor's responsibility to decide the fate of an article and an appeal consists in an author asking the Editor to reconsider his decision. In the present instance this process has been followed and the Editor’s decision to confirm rejection communicated to the author. There is no further authority the Editor’s decision is final. That is how journals operate.

 

Rejection may not be a pleasant experience but to seek to turn our scientific decision into an issue of ‘ethics’ is not acceptable. Your writing on the author's behalf will not change our decision: his paper will not be published in Physics Letters A. The reason for this has already been explained to the author.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

PR Holland

Editor, Physics Letters A

phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk

 

 

cc Karine van Wetering, Publisher, Elsevier, Condensed Matter Physics

Carina Arasa Cid, Managing Editor, Physics Letters A

 

 

Date: Monday, 1 December 2014 05:56

To: "phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk" <phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk>

Cc: "c.arasacid@elsevier.com" <c.arasacid@elsevier.com>, Ashish

Sirohi <as7y@yahoo.com>

Subject: Concerns raised by Ashish Sirohi

 

 

Dear Dr Holland,

I am writing to you as Ashish Sirohi– ccd in this email has contacted the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to raise concerns in relation to the rejection of his submission to Physics Letters A.
As you may know, Elsevier has signed in all its journals to COPE and thus your journal is a COPE member. COPE’s role is primarily to provide advice for member editors and journals and to promote a better understanding of publication ethics overall. COPE does not interfere with specific editorial decisions. Hence, we would not make any comment on your specific decision to consider Dr Sirohi's paper.

However, Dr Sirohi indicates that he has contacted you in relation to the rejection of the manuscript and that he has not received information regarding the journal’s appeal process.

The COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors advises that journals should have declared mechanisms for authors to appeal against editorial decisions. We would therefore ask you to  please confirm with us that Physics Letters A does have an appeal process, and provide details as to where the relevant information for this process is available, so that Dr Sirohi can pursue consideration of his concerns with you as per that process.

I hope you may already have found COPE material helpful and that perhaps you will attend one of our Forum meetings in the future.

Many thanks for your time.

With best wishes,

Iratxe Puebla

COPE Membership Assistant

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

www.publicationethics.org

 

Registered charity No 1123023

Registered in England and Wales, Company No 6389120

Registered office: COPE, 22 Nelson Close, Harleston, Norfolk IP20 9HL, UK



Editor Holland of Physics Letters A says in above Dec 5, 2014 email "the appeal process has already occurred." This was the "process," which COPE found acceptable, whereby on receiving my post-rejection letter the editor replied, after apparently consulting with Managing Editor Carina Arasa Cid, who is no expert of the paper topic – relativity.

 

Subject:   Re: Physics Letters A Enquiry: PLA PLA­D­14­01807 "Space is discrete..." Rejection

 

From:        Physics Letters (phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk)

 

To:            as7y@yahoo.com;

 

Cc:            c.arasacid@elsevier.com;

 

Date:          Wednesday, September 24, 2014

 

Ms. Ref. No.: PLAD1401807
Title: Space is discrete for mass and continuous for light
Physics Letters A

Dear Dr Sirohi

Thank you for your enquiry. Physics Letters A is devoted to the rapid dissemination of important new results in physics. To be considered for publication, articles must be sufficiently original, timely, urgent and of wide interest to justify rapid publication. Competition to publish in the journal is fierce, with a rejection rate of over 80%. We have regretfully determined that this work does not satisfy the criteria for publication in Physics Letters A. Please find a more suitable journal.

 Yours sincerely,

PR Holland
Editor, Physics Letters A
phys.letters@gtc.ox.ac.uk

http://ees.elsevier.com/pla

Book Preview
Back to Top


Follow us on Twitter, https://twitter.com/ChurchofPhysics

 

 

 

 

 

 

Follow us on Twitter, https://twitter.com/ChurchofPhysics 

Download Book Preview in PDF format


Email: as@churchofphysics.org

-- Ashish Sirohi

About Us: We are on a Mission from God. What mission? (And thanks for not asking "What God?"). We live in a special time in physics history because never before has there been such authoritarian religious worship of a theory and suppression of facts against it. Our Mission: Fall of the Relativity-worshipping Church and the Reemergence of Physics as an Authority-Challenging and Objective Science.


Book Preview
Back to Top