Difference between revisions of "Criticisms of Special Relativity"
Tom Bishop (talk | contribs) |
Tom Bishop (talk | contribs) (→Quotes) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{cite|The failure of leading physics journals to accept papers critical of theories such as relativity, amounts to a particularly insidious form of censorship. It is one of the principle reasons for 100 years of stagnation in theoretical physics.}} | {{cite|The failure of leading physics journals to accept papers critical of theories such as relativity, amounts to a particularly insidious form of censorship. It is one of the principle reasons for 100 years of stagnation in theoretical physics.}} | ||
| − | Dr. Vadim A.Zhmud at Novosibirsk State Technical University [http://www.antidogma.ru/appeal_en.html asserts]]: | + | Dr. Vadim A.Zhmud ([https://www.sgem.org/documents/committee/Zhmud.pdf bio]) at Novosibirsk State Technical University [http://www.antidogma.ru/appeal_en.html asserts]]: |
{{cite|RT is erroneous: there exist conclusive disproofs of RT, but a basis for RT is absent. There appear some new possibilities for progress in physics. RT brings a prejudice to Science, but the refute from RT can present adequate predictions.}} | {{cite|RT is erroneous: there exist conclusive disproofs of RT, but a basis for RT is absent. There appear some new possibilities for progress in physics. RT brings a prejudice to Science, but the refute from RT can present adequate predictions.}} | ||
Revision as of 17:35, 21 May 2019
Criticism of the Foundations of the Relativity Theory
Dr. Sergey N. Arteha (bio),
Deputy Chief of Department of the Space Research Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences
PDF Full Text Link (HTML Version)
“ Contrary to the artificially maintained judgement, that the modern physics rests upon some well-verified fundamental theories, too frequently the ad hoc hypotheses appear (for a certain particular phenomenon), as well as science-like adjustments of calculations to the 'required result', similarly to students’ peeping at an a priori known answer to the task. The predictive force of fundamental theories in applications occurs to be close to zero (contrary to allegations of 'showman from science'). ”
Quotes
Walter Babin of the The General Science Journal (Rodney,Canada) says:
“ The failure of leading physics journals to accept papers critical of theories such as relativity, amounts to a particularly insidious form of censorship. It is one of the principle reasons for 100 years of stagnation in theoretical physics. ”
Dr. Vadim A.Zhmud (bio) at Novosibirsk State Technical University asserts]:
“ RT is erroneous: there exist conclusive disproofs of RT, but a basis for RT is absent. There appear some new possibilities for progress in physics. RT brings a prejudice to Science, but the refute from RT can present adequate predictions. ”
Dr. Arkadiusz Jadczyk (bio) at the International Institute of Mathematical Physics, France, comments:
“ While it is the fact that unconventional and interesting ideas (like those of Lavrentev, Eganova, Santilli,Shipov) are rejected and/or ignored by the institutionalized science, it is also true that the same unconventional scientists often reject or ignore offers for the help from their colleagues that may like to criticize some of the elements of their theories. This creates a vicious cycle and the spooks, politicians, and the military, who want to keep any real discovery in secret, and "normal scientists" in confusion, rejoice. ”