Date: 16 March 2007
Subject: Fwd: The Einstein controversies – a pragmatic way out
Dr B S Chandrasekhar
Walther Meissner Institute
Dear Dr Chandrasekhar,
"When you really understand physics, there are no paradoxes." – Physics Today, March 2007, page14
Forgive my observation here if I have understood the above incorrectly, but these are perhaps the most disturbing words that I have come across in the literature (if ever they were uttered in retort by your namesake, the late S. Chandrasekhar). Such arrogance tends to spring only from dogmatists under the delusion they understand physics absolutely. If one really does – one wouldn't resort to such words to convince others; but, if indeed uttered, especially in reply to a question from one with a lesser paper qualification – it would only be to avoid giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question (that could rightly come from any taxpayer funding research).
Wouldn't it be more becoming of us mortals to say, instead: "When we get to really understand physics, there would be no paradoxes"?
Not surprisingly, the misconception that is the 'Chandrasekhar mass' – in fact, stellar evolution in general – now exemplifies how well physicists had it all understood. In this context, please be good enough to access http://www.sittampalam.net/Editors.htm and http://www.sittampalam.net/Editors.2005.htm for perusal.
Moreover, the "black holes and such," you mention, join this bandwagon of bad science. This, in contrast, is not a vain statement since I am prepared to back it up with hard cash upfront for its refutation; details of which are on my website. The item forwarded below should further pique your interest in this regard – please do accept it as well.
Hope you and your physics department head will favorably consider this sincere challenge (to shut me up for good!).
Thank you and kind regards,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
To: Editor-in-Chief, Nature firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: 31 January 2007
Subject: The Einstein controversies – a pragmatic way out
Dr Philip Campbell
Dear Dr Campbell,
The Einstein controversies – a pragmatic way out
With all due respect to Nature and such others, any scientific journal worthy of its public trust should first and foremost strive towards the truth. And it's never too late for a leading journal to set records straight starting with, perhaps, the most blatant publication fraud of them all – Einstein's unreferenced 1905 paper, where almost the entire body of literature by Lorentz and Poincaré was plagiarized. [See, for instance, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Dowers Grove (2002) and its review/rebuttal by John Stachel, Director, Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University, US, on http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2/1; the response to the latter was, understandably, refused publication by Physics World.]
What should be most disturbing is that even though Poincaré was the world's leading expert on relativity at the time, Einstein apparently had never heard of him or thought he had done anything worth referencing! Moreover, the obvious fudging of the 1919 solar eclipse data by Eddington adds only further credence that these were premeditated acts of subversion.
Whitewashing oneself occasionally with releases such the first four items above goes only to show increasingly how political it has all become even with pure science. Striking lesser mortals (although deservedly) as token would be the height of hypocrisy when the godfather of them all is conveniently left at large for its monetary returns today – the multi-billion-dollar research grants that only his abstract theories can increasingly rake in on account of their ever-expanding mystery and intrigue (black holes and such others).
What's even more pathetic is that both Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity have now been unequivocally shown to be flawed, fundamentally and irreparably – and that the two are wholly replaceable with a simple, singular and purely classical mechanical model; for a glimpse of the latter, please see The Final Theory of Relativity (http://www.sittampalam.net/Relativity.htm).
A pragmatic way to rescue science from this century-old quagmire would be for scholars to completely ignore it from now on, for the right reason. Surely, there must have been similar cases of cheating during the heydays of, say, the flat-earth society; but, because the theory itself was proven totally wrong, the issues would have died away due to their irrelevance to emerging research. In a like manner, the Einstein society, too, would fade into oblivion with all its controversies if even vested-interest groups here should fail to debunk the Final Theory that I have propounded. (Disproving a down-to-earth classical mechanical theory, unlike an abstract one, should be easy and straightforward.) Perhaps, this is best done under your kind and able auspices or those of, say, the Royal Society, with cost of evaluation, review, administration, etc., (plus a US$25,000 reward to any successful contender!) all paid by me in full and in advance under any terms you may kindly stipulate. Required number of copies of my book, And now the long-awaited… "Theory of Everything" (Vantage, New York, 1999), too, would accompany the bank draft by FedEx.
If this final concept of mine on the nature of things is refuted to your satisfaction (or that of the Royal Society), alone, it would also shut me up for good and save us all valuable time in the future. However, would it be wrong for one to conclude that a continued silence here to take up a genuine and humble challenge by any principled academic institution could only be interpreted as due to vested interest even on the part of the institution itself?
I await your kind and early response. I am confident it will also pave the way out of these dark (matter and energy) ages of physics and to a bright and fruitful future for basic research – with a windfall relief to the public paying for it!
Thank you and best regards.
Simon Eugene Sittampalam
Tel: +9421 222 6851
– End of letter –