From: Ashish Sirohi

To: Professor Ajay Kumar Sood, Principal Scientific Adviser to the Government of India

CC: wilczek@mit.edu, g.thooft@uu.nl, rovelli@cpt.univ-mrs.fr, lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca

Sent: June 17, 2023

Subject: Infinity x Zero = c, re-emergence of two favorite Indian entities topples Relativity

Dear Hon. Principal Scientific Adviser Professor Sood,

This communication is regarding a major physics development.

The Mega Science Vision-2035 Exercise undertaken by your Principal Science Adviser’s Office gives physics prime importance; the Office description states the role to “assess the status in specific science and technology domains, comprehend challenges, formulate interventions …”. With many of the mentioned areas of physics being directly founded on the equations of space and time, one must have these foundations correct. What I describe below would be the greatest modern science breakthrough in Indian history, and thus worth your time in pursuing and resolving.

The equation mentioned in the subject, infinity x zero = c, where c is the speed of light, brings into modern physics the two entities – infinity and zero – that have been favorite ponderings of thinkers of ancient India. Such breakthrough is much needed today, when Indians are looking to foster recognition and pride in pre-British Indian science and other achievements, and are fiercely debating the relevance of past Indian scientific thought to modern science.

The details are in my book, Toppling Relativity: My Struggle With the Church of Physics and Other Evaders of Truth; the technical physics paper is included there as Appendix and is also available free at my below website. By bringing in infinity and zero, I provide a simple explanation for the constancy of speed of light. Einstein simply postulated the constancy.  My equations, founded on infinity x zero = c, form an alternative to Einstein’s equations of special relativity (the Lorentz transformations). My equations are consistent with both of Einstein’s special relativity postulates, and are a counterexample to Einstein’s claimed derivation – taught in college-level textbooks – that Einstein’s two postulates necessarily imply the Lorentz transformations. My book gives full communications with Nobel Prize winners Gerard ‘t Hooft, Steven Weinberg, and Frank Wilczek, where they, having acknowledged reading the paper, evade the question of whether I have a valid counterexample. Similar evasion by Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelli and others involved with officially reviewing the paper suggests that the counterexample is valid. My theory, like special relativity, has different observers measuring time differently, but it gives a specific cosmological test case where they will measure time to be the same, violating relativity. Telescopic observations showing this very predicted violation of relativity have now appeared in physics journals.

Physics authorities religiously teach students Einstein’s wrong derivation, hiding the counterexample; further, above observational relativity violation is not covered by physics texts or popular science writings. The dissemination and discussion of above details is being prevented by authorities of (what I call) the relativity-worshipping “Church of Physics.”

Reaching out to the public becomes important in such a controversy. Chapter 1 gives the physics of using infinity and zero to explain the constancy of speed of light, in a way that can be understood by the non-technical general reader. The chapter is available free, see https://www.amazon.com/Toppling-Relativity-Struggle-Physics-Evaders-ebook/dp/B0BQWX8CD8 or https://churchofphysics.org .

Newtonian “flow of time” was replaced in Einstein’s special relativity with “time flow affected by motion” whereby all clocks in the same (inertial) frame of reference would show the same time dilation. However, clocks not being equally affected by motion and not giving the same time dilation is the emerging experimental reality, with certain moving cosmic clocks showing no time dilation whatsoever. Thus Einstein’s replacement of Newton’s equations is also wrong, with the special relativity time dilation equation not holding up. The common Newton-Einstein philosophy regarding there being “time flow” has fallen. The pre-Newton ancient Indian philosophy that time is a measure of change and thus there needs to be some physical change for time to exist (rather than time being a separate entity that “flows”) is experimentally emerging to be the correct one. My equations are based on this ancient philosophy of time.

 

Many may point to the long list of failed attacks on special relativity, noting that its two postulates continue to pass all tests; the speed of light continues to stay perfectly constant. My physics paper is different from failed attacks on special relativity in that it fully accepts both the postulates as physical reality (without modifying them in any way), actually explains the light postulate (which Einstein couldn’t) and gives full replacement equations which are consistent with all previous experimental tests. Further, it makes a differentiating experimental prediction that has already emerged as seemingly true and can be further confirmed. No alternative to special relativity has ever come close to having these verifiable qualifications.

 

Peer review has failed and my book has a full chapter regarding how physics authorities have been evading, see Chapter 4. Evasion as a Peer Review Methodology Within the Church of Physics: Steven Weinberg, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Frank Wilczek, Lee Smolin & Carlo Rovelli. Four of them are CC-ed on this email. If I am wrong and Einstein’s derivation is correct and I do not have a counterexample to it or if there are no emerging problems with experimental verification of Einstein’s time dilation equation then these (and other) physicists have the option to openly conclude that and state it. However, they only evade. The technical paper now stands published as Appendix to my book; breakthrough physics has often been historically published as part of a book. Even today, a book can turn out to be the only available option. The Trouble With Physics, p. 323, by one of the four CC-ed, mentions this advice regarding peer review rejecting publication of papers challenging foundations: “[P]apers on this were rejected by the physics journals … for someone whose work focused on foundational problems …  should write a book about them.”

 

The greatest unshakable dogma being practiced in Western physics, seemingly based on the views of Aristotle, may be the avoidance of infinity. Aristotle dismissed the existence of actual infinity noting that “if the infinite existed then it would absorb the finite … ‘annihilate’ any finite number.” For example … the sum a + b … if b were infinite, no matter what finite value a might assume, a + infinite = infinite. Was Aristotle wrong in claiming such annihilation would be caused by actual infinity? No. His annihilation argument is perfectly valid. But such annihilation actually happens in the physical world! What Aristotle notes about infinity actually forms my explanation for the constancy of the speed of light. In Chapter 1 I explain the addition of infinite number of jumps associated with light and finite number of jumps that the observer makes. To quote from that chapter, “For case when You are observing light we have … infinite – ‘finite value’ = infinite” (note that + or – work the same way). No matter what the finite value, the infinite annihilates the finite number. The speed of light annihilates the speed of the observer in that the speed of the observer does not matter when looking at light. What Aristotle notes about infinity actually forms my mathematical explanation for the constancy of the speed of light. The hidden infinity associated with the speed of light annihilates the speed of the observer in that the speed of the observer does not matter when looking at light.

 

This is an opportunity for India to take world leadership in boldly and independently pursuing facts and reason that Western science authorities want to evade; Indian science should follow a path to open and objective evaluation and rigorous experimental testing. Indian physics classrooms must teach theoretical and experimental truth, rather than evade problems with special relativity.  Einstein’s special relativity derivation should only be studied in Indian physics classrooms along with the counterexample that shows the derivation to be invalid, and Indian professors should not withhold from physics students the emerging failure of Einstein’s time dilation equation in cosmic bodies.  The eventual result of such an independent path could be India and the West having different and contradictory foundational space and time equations in their physics textbooks. However, such a clash would bring the world to understand the reality of how truth evading pursuit of dogma – that avoids infinity and zero and effectively worships special relativity – rules Western physics. By not fighting the evaders of truth India, instead, may become the laughing stock of the world in that the colonial mindset kept India from pursuing verifiably correct equations that follow from its own ancient thinking, and from rejecting the verifiably wrong ones, because such pursuit would make India go against the dogmas and wishes of Western physics authorities.

 

I look forward to your consideration and help with resolution. In my pursuit of scientific truth, refutation has always been sought and welcome.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Ashish Sirohi

(I have put a copy of this email on my churchofphysics.org website.)

 

Related Developments and Links

Homepage