Superluminal Theories
Subject: Superluminal Theories
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:16:56 EDT
Many thanks, I have worked with the tachyon or superluminal people for quite a long time now, and published a review article by Roberto Mignani et al in Advances in Chemical Physics, vol. 119(3) (Wiley 2001). Also I have published with Mr Tachyon himself, Erasmo Recami, so I have been open minded about the theories. Your own contribution is interesting. At present I am working on the hypothesis of constant c. I agree entirely with you that the esatblishment is in a state of collapse.
***************************************************************************************** To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *****************************************************************************************
Myron, There is no real appeals process with the so-called prestigious scientific journals - which makes it all the more surprising that Albrecht and Magueijo succeeded in persuading Physical Review to publish their paper on speeds faster than that of light - and, incidentally, managed to prevent any publication of the fact that Kenneth Thornhill had predicted the same roughly twenty years previously and that fact, together with some predictions following (they also appeared in the Albrecht and Magueijo paper) had been publicised by me at a conference held at Imperial College. Some sort of ‘old boy’ network is definitely in place and dangerously undermining true science. I might add that, in one sense, I don’t mind if you or Stephen is correct, the principle involved is so so important here that, in my view, that almost over-rides the personal side. Don’t take this remark the wrong way; personally I agree with the views expressed by you and Stephen but I’m simply wishing to stress the immense importance to world science, and possibly to the world itself, of the basic principle involved here and which is being constantly and consistently violated. As for the ‘Einstein is Right’ headlines, they’re silly and pointless. I wonder what Einstein would have thought of some of them? Best wishes, Jeremy.
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Fri 05/09/2008 10:49
Subject: Those “Einstein was Right” Headlines
These should now be discarded by thinking scientists. Good scholarship has shown conclusively that the geometry used by Einstein is incorrect. Alley in his recent address to the Czech Assembly and in his Wheeler Fest address at Princeton in 2006 pinpointed two early criticisms of the Einstein field equation made independently in 1918 by Bauer and Schroedinger. Today for example I came across some strident google headlines claiming that Gravity Probe B proves that “Einstein was right”. The facts are that Gravity probe B merely confirmed the well known light bending type effect (previously seen for example by Cassini) and failed to see the so called “Lense Thirring” effect. It has now been abandoned afte rbeing graded F by NASA. Yet these headlines still abound. We did attempt to submit the historical paper 93 to a standard physics journal, but were told that it was sic “A loony paper”. On the basis of this three word abuse, the editor rejected the paper and quite obviously did not read it. The appeals process of Physica was found to be non-existent. The editor eventually became very abusive, and broke off contact. No scientific appraisal of paper 93 took place by the establishment adn teh paper is accordingly still on teh table at Phsyica B because we will not accept illegal personal abuse. This kind of conduct has also been recorded by Steve Crothers. So it has become clear that the standard establishment has no scientific integrity left. The response of the working scientists worldwide has been to study all ECE papers in great detail. They are currently censored by the Institute of Physics for example. The light bending effect cannot be due to the Eisnetin field equation, it is well known by now that it is due to the orbital theorem of paper 111, shown in paper 108 to reproduce all orbits. So if the supposedly respectable scientific establishment behaves like this, it should come as no surprise that politicians do not know what they are doing or what they are funding - because they take advice from a heavily prejudiced and obsolete science establishment.