To: Professor Robert P Crease <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 9 April 2007
Subject: Science bloopers, Physics World, April 2007
Professor Robert P Crease
Chairman, Department of Philosophy
& Historian, BNL
Dear Professor Crease,
I read with much interest (if not, impish delight!) your above article.
In the context of other examples, I would greatly appreciate your accessing (1) for perusal. (This may not fall strictly within scope of your intended next article, but the sheer ramifications here may spur you on to an entirely new category toward that esteemed objective and Holy Grail of science, the final and blooper-free unification of physics!)
Hopefully, you will find the matter presented to be sans bloopers on my side of the fence, and thereby all too hard to ignore for future research and for the true advancement of science. (It will also help break the silence that now continues from journals.)
Typically, take the case of the contraction of moving bodies. Einstein simply assumes there is no contraction transverse to motion (a blooper par excellence?). However, I have shown there is (or is this the real blooper?) and have derived both the longitudinal and transverse contraction factors for the first time ever from first principles of, yes, classical mechanics; see Section 5 of (2).
THIS IS A MOST CRITICAL INSIGHT; THE LACK OF WHICH WILL BE THE FINAL FUNDAMENTAL FAILURE OF EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. [The contractions also underlie the inertial and centrifugal effects, now lacking explanation in physics; see (3).]
Hence, in keeping with Einstein's concept which you may now hold sacred, you, as a revered and authoritative intellectual of our time, may reevaluate and declare for all time to the world of science there is no contraction of body transverse to motion (no blooper here, in other words) and substantiate it by showing the fundamental reason why.
I quite understand that, while holding topmost academic positions in world-renowned institutes, you cannot be expected to endorse my concept openly even if convinced (and bring the house down!). Refuting it, on the other hand, should be an entirely different matter. Hope, therefore, you will kindly consider the latter. (It would also deter other cranks from polluting mainstream thought!)
Alternatively, your physics department students at least could take up the challenge to net the still unclaimed US$25,000, minimum, on offer to disprove my worldview [details in (4), under "A friendly yet serious Challenge to Readers"]. They have only to prove to your satisfaction alone that I have gaffed and collect. [I shall rush the money to you by bank transfer, on your kind approval, so that you may even hold the entire US$25,000 as cash in hand before opening the 'contest'; I shall include also two copies of my book (4).] However, considering how hard-pressed one may be for time, proving just one fundamental flaw such as the above transverse contraction to be nonexistent should suffice to throw my entire work out.
Wouldn't basic research otherwise seem not only a well hyped up scam to the paying public but also a great injustice in general to the innocent students of science worldwide the establishment purports to inform and guide?
Thank you and best regards.
(1) The Einstein controversies a pragmatic way out: www.sittampalam.net/BeyondEinstein.htm.
(2) A Synopsis: www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm.
(3) The Final Theory of Relativity www.sittampalam.net/Relativity.htm.
(5) Nature Cover Letter: www.sittampalam.net/NatureCover.pdf (Limited circulation).
(6) Nature Preprint: www.sittampalam.net/NaturePreprint.pdf (Limited circulation).
Simon Eugene Sittampalam
PO Box 134, 645
Jaffna, Sri Lanka
Tel: +9421 222 6851
Fax: +9421 222 5656
End of letter
Readers here may find three subsequent letters to be of equal interest in this context of the Legacy of Einstein.
Please do access them on:
(1) The Michelson-Morley Experiment www.sittampalam.net/MME.htm.
(2) No more Black Holes? www.sittampalam.net/BlackHoles.htm.
(3) Relativity and the Nobel Response www.sittampalam.net/NobelResponse.htm