nevertheless it was a good week, and since through graduation, comes the disillusionment with the academia i am here to talk about our new past time activity Tolga Yarman. he is probably the biggest contemporary physics anomaly in the contemporary academia. Yarman is a professor in reactor engineering, but this doesn't stop his students to refer to him as a "physicist" (imagine! it has a symbolic value, a positive connotation!). not only due to the fact that he is supposedly a great lecturer but also he recently debunked general relativity -hold on- twice!
through publishing papers in non-peer reviewed conference proceedings and arXiv, he debunked general relativity and "showed" geometrical representation of gravity is unnecessary in explaining observables (like Mercur's precession, and gravitational redshift). these kinds of provocative science stunts are not unknown, especially if you are working on gravity, as my fellow phd student Peter noted, you get to learn about them through spam mails.
but the thing that was peculiar about Yarman is that he is notorious in publicity. right out of a feyerabendian distopia, Yarman uses every aspect possible to publicize his non-peer reviewed work. basically he had a press conference on december 2008 (call in turkish), and funnily enough a similar kind of press call happened one and a half year before in april 2007 (news in turkish). it turns out he didn't get enough attention hence the second conference.
he is currently self publicizing in wikipedia (by himself or through students) , so right now it is a great source to know what he and his "followers" think of himself.
"They have informed the public that the experiments achieved in November 2008 by Kholmetskii et al., in Minsk, clearly back up the approach architectured by Prof. Tolga Yarman, Prof. Metin Arik, Prof. Vladislav B. Rozanov, Prof. Alexander Kholmetskii, Prof. Garret Sobczyk, and Prof. Oleg Missevitch, thus disfavoring the General Relativity Theory, also allowing the quantization of the gravitational field, just like that of the electric field."
un-fucking-believably his reference to this paragraph is the press conference call of his current press conference. and the wiki article is a compilation of his recent "publications" and one turkish newspaper article.
if you are wondering why somebody would go in such an extreme for publicity, part of the answer lies on the fact that last year he tried to become the leader of the main opposition party in turkey the republican people's party (cumhuriyet halk partisi; chp) but failed. we can only assume that his ambition is still there, from his turkish homepage.
here are my critisms in sourtimes, in turkish unfortunately. but since he is continuing his notorious campaign i intend to give a through analysis in english here.
June 28th, 2009
ReplyDeleteDear Astrophysicist:
I understand you are a scientist, but who does not want to reveal himself.
In any case, I am sad to read such a biased criticism.
Normally I do not answer, criticisms made here and there, chiefly, by people who hide their names.
However, reading your Turkish criticisms as well, I thought I must provide a reply to you, as well as to those who feel and behave the way you do, chiefly to contribute to our mutual culture.
I am glad to see that many people answered you, as regards to your Turkish writings, you raised against my work. I should like to extend my gratitude to them…
To me, the most striking statement you made there, was, you did not have enough time to pin down my mistake.
Thus, first of all, I would like to invite you, to spare more time, to pin it down, please. Or do not say anything about it, forever.
I sympathize by your motivation that, anyway I must have made a mistake, for I have seen so many carried out, unfortunately the way you could not avoid.
But to my understanding you do not really act, scientifically. You simply assume that “I am wrong”. And “Where am I wrong”, you do not know at all, as you state, yourself.
**
I love to make mistakes. What I am afraid is though, not to be able to see my mistakes.
Whoever can show, I commit a mistake, is most welcome... l would be grateful to him... But not to those who approach to a work with a totally locked bias, also I am afraid, hatred, which should, I believe not hang around even a bit, if we discuss science... How can we take seriously, a person with a belief that, there must be a mistake somewhere, but does not care to take the time to show it, even to see, if perhaps he is badly biased, or not?
Next let me mention that I am an admirer of Einstein, since the time I got acquainted with the theory of relativity, that is, since by now, about 45 years.
My aim was not to disprove Einstein, at all. It was, to understand his ideas and results... In fact, I have no problem with the Special Theory of Relativity) STR, to which, I hope, I contributed to some extent. For instance, see please, my last article that just appeared in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k36n8w1030lm2324/?p=7abd4249b1f64c51a9b85d2b87a6de96&pi=0 ...
Tolga Yarman (to be continued)
II
ReplyDeleteIf you do not have a Springer account, of course, you cannot open it. But please remember, I am as close to you, as a click you can make on your PC's mouse. My e-mail address is tolgayarman@gmail.com. If you asked me the article, I could of course send it you. In your Turkish criticism you say you could not reach my article that appeared in Foundations of Physics Letters:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1756g420232r2n11/?p=924636ea5ee34746b13d638d041fe5dc&pi=0 .
My e-mail address is everywhere. For one thing it appears on my articles. I even suspect that you may know me in person. Anyway that is to say, instead of stating such awkward arguments, as to, you could not reach an article of mine, you could personally write to me, and ask that article. I would of course be glad to send it to you... And that would save a lot of energy and time, to everyone interested in the matter...
**
Anyway, what I want to convey is that, I have no problems with the STR, but had problems with the General Theory of Relativity (GTR), and chiefly with the Principle of Equivalence, i.e. the sameness of the effect of acceleration and the effect of gravitation, on a given object, yet the way stated by Einstein.
The problem is, while trying to understand the GTR, I ended up with the end results of this latter theory, via only the relativistic law of energy conservation, and Quantum Mechanics, which on the other hand, lies on this universal law, along with (to keep a long story short), the de Broglie relationship. But on the other hand, I was also able to derive this relationship, based on just the relativistic law of energy conservation.
The whole thing turned then to be a puzzle. How come, I was able to get to the end results of the GTR, via a totally different setup than that of Einstein?
Either, I was wrong (which is of course a possibility, but nobody was able to show it yet, and the French NASA / ONERA was very interested in my results, proposing to measure the very small discrepancy these delineate with those of the GTR), or the Grand Master was wrong, or we must both be wrong. Seemingly we could not both have modeled the results we have targeted, in equally valid ways, for, while we end up with the same measurable end results, there remained many contradictions displayed by the two approaches of concern.
Experiments must have decided, whose conception was closer to the reality.
The ONERA asked me to conceive experiments to clear out the divergence between the two models. I did propose few... But the resolution of the equipment at hand, did not allow to lighten the shadow.
The Research General Director of ONERA, Prof. Christian Marchal asked me, not to get discouraged, and conceive other experiments.
By then (in 1999) I was totally deceived, for what experiment one could think of, to pin down the divergence in question, if even in the solar system, both sets furnished the same results up to a third order Taylor expansion.
Finally I conceived an experiment with Professor Metin Arik and Prof. Vladislav Rozanov... In fact this is nothing, but the gedanken experiment undertaken by Einstein himself in his book "The Meaning of Relativity"... A clock mounted at the edge of a spinning rotor, according to Einstein, must retard just due to the displacement effect. That displacement evidently creates an acceleration. Thence if the clock of concern is brought to a gravitation field of the same intensity (defined by the gravitational potential, Einstein uses), then it must display the same outlook. So was the essence of the Grand Master's approach, in building the GTR.
Tolga Yarman (to be continued)
III
ReplyDeleteHowever according to our approach, next to the usual displacement effect, displayed by the spinning rotor; the "acceleration" all by itself must have created a "binding effect".
In other words, an observer situated at the center of the rotor and spinning with the rotor, thus at rest with respect to the object at the edge, must observe a red shifting of the light issued from this.
When we calculated this latter effect it turned out to be practically as much as the classical relativistic effect. Thence the outside observer at rest with regards to the rotor, must practically observe twice the classical time dilation effect as regards to the spinning clock.
You know as much as I do, I conjecture, how conservative is generally the "Science Church". Accordingly we could by then (in 2007) publish our results in solely the Conference Proceedings of the Conference on the Physical Interpretations of the Relativity Theory, that was held in Moscow, in 2007.
Russian Colleagues were very much interested in making the related experiments.
In the mean time we have discovered that the experiment was in effect achieved in 1963, by Kundig reporting by then, the measurement of the mere effect predicted by Einstein with a precision of 1%.
But it did not take us long, to detect an error of at least 20% in the data processing of Kundig, and this, in the very article he wrote about the subject in Physical Review Letters (PRL) .
We have reported this fundamental error (which to us was all by itself capable to put an entire century's conception at stake), to PRL.
The review process took about a year. To keep it brief, let me mention that The Editor decided not to publish our paper, based on the referee's, we certainly believe, "stupid statement" that "Kundig's article has been cited quite a few times only, showing (according to him) that the readers of the PRL, are thus aware of Kundig's mistake".
Nevertheless we were soon after, capable to publish that article in Physica Scripta:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/77/3/035302 ...
**
At the same time, we prepared our own experiment.
The results were harvested in November 2009.
I am afraid, the results were backing our prediction, rather than that of the Grand Master.
We reported the experimental results to PRL. We still await, and fight as well...
But knowing the attitude of the management of this journal, not to lose time, we reported different versions of our research results, to three other journals.
Again, Physica Scripta has been courageous enough to publish our results:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/79/6/065007 ...
Our articles presented to JPSJ and Nuevo Cemento, are still under consideration.
Tolga Yarman (to be continued)
IV
ReplyDeleteTo resume, the way I conceive things by now, is that the Grand Master had indeed mistaken for he had not considered the effect of acceleration, specifically, on the spinning clock, next to the usual relativistic effect of displacement.
Einstein himself, in "The Meaning of Relativity", made a footnote on page 60, showing that he gave a thought to the problem, but then he hoped he could neglect the effect caused, directly, by the acceleration.
I am afraid, this is the mistake of an entire century, a mistake, which moved me, since the time I was doing my Ph.D. at MIT (1968 - 1972). It was even question that, I did a Ph.D. thesis on relativity, right after I passed my qualification exams (QE) (in January 1970), but the Nuclear Engineering Department (where I took my QE), offered a very attractive proposition, for a research post, which I enthusiastically accepted... I should nevertheless mention that I accorded an equal importance to my reading and research interest, in the area of relativity, while I was working on my Ph.D. thesis.
Recall anyway that nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, plasma physics, thermodynamics are some of the major theory courses for a nuclear engineer, just like electrodynamics is a major theory course for an electrical engineer, or anatomy is a major theory course for a physician...
**
I will not specifically answer very many unfair, unscientific, unreal, totally biased, and unfortunately, too much ill points you raised, below. I trust that you will be sage enough to reconsider them for yourself, based on the explanations and information I have provided herein... And I certainly hope that, next time you will write about the subject, you will be courageous enough, not hide yourself, and consult with me, or my Colleagues, before you are carried away by the addictional nonsense...
Let me incidentally mention that, quite on the contrary to your conjecture, neither myself, nor my students have prepared the Wikipedia site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolga_Yarman), devoted to my feature and research line. This is to say, this site was prepared totally outside of my will. All the more that, after I have happily crossed that site, this encyclopedia’s administration refused to provide links to my work, and this, to secure objectivity, in accordance with her established criteria…
**
Cordially...
Professor Tolga Yarman, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, MIT
T. C. Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey
A small correction:
ReplyDeleteThe results of the experiments we have achieved were harvested in November 2008 (and not November 2009).
T.Y.
TREES AND ENVIRONMENT
ReplyDelete1) An average size tree produces enough oxygen in one year to keep a family of four breathing.
2) Three trees planted in the right place around buildings can cut air-conditioning costs up to 50 percent.
3) Trees increase the value of property. Houses surrounded by trees sell for 18-25 percent higher than houses with no trees.
4) Trees generate jobs and contribute raw materials for buildings, newspapers, books and more than 15,000 other forest products. Trees are renewable, biodegradable and recyclable. Wood by-products become such products as vitamins, plastics, vanilla flavoring, photographic film, toothpaste and medicines.
5) By planting 20 million trees, the earth and its people will be provided with 260 million more tons of oxygen. Those same 20 million trees will remove 10 million tons of CO2.
6) Trees provide shelter and food for wildlife such as birds, squirrels, and bugs. Groves of trees provide food and cover for larger mammals, such as raccoons and deer.
7) Trees make people feel good. Workers are more productive when they see trees along their commute routes and from their office windows.
8) Hospital patients who have a view of trees heal faster, use fewer pain medications, and leave the hospital sooner than patients with a view of a brick wall. Patients with a view of trees spend 8 percent fewer days in the hospital.
9) Consumers are willing to spend more money in shopping districts with trees. They are willing to pay more for products purchased in a shopping district with trees. Those same shoppers also say they are willing to stay longer and rate the products and stores as higher quality in a shopping district with the trees.
10) Trees in the landscape relax us, lower heart rates, and reduce stress.
by from samaritan
DEGERLi TOLGA YARMAN, MERHABA.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the limits of the Earth,
beyond the limit of the Infinite,
I searched for Heaven and Hell.
But a grave voice warned me: "Heaven and Hell are in you"
Derleyen Merhametli/Londra'dan Sevgilerle,
Esenlikler dilerim
But a grave voice warned me: "Heaven and Hell are in you"
ReplyDeleteAh, fill the Cup – what boots it to repeat
How Time is slipping underneath our Feet:
Unborn TOMORROW, and dead YESTERDAY,
Why fret about them if TODAY be sweet!
Be happy for this moment This moment is your life.
Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám Translated by Edward FitzGerald
Ah, my Beloved, fill the Cup that clears
To-DAY of past Regrets and future Fears:
To-morrow!-Why, To-morrow I may be
Myself with Yesterday's Sev'n thousand Years
Ah, fill the Cup – what boots it to repeat
How Time is slipping underneath our Feet:
Unborn TOMORROW, and dead YESTERDAY,
Why fret about them if TODAY be sweet!
Beyond the limits of the Earth,
beyond the limit of the Infinite,
I searched for Heaven and Hell.
But a grave voice warned me: "Heaven and Hell are in you"
Alike for those who for TO-DAY prepare,
And those that after some TO-MORROW stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries,
"Fools! your Reward is neither Here nor There."
Into t into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
An And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I kno I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing
YESTERDAY This Day's Madness did prepare;
TOMORROW's Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why:
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where. OMAR HAYYAM;
ESENLiKLER DiLERiM,
Derleyen Merhametli Londra
wdeasgfdrsg
ReplyDeleteWhat an excellent information because all referred to those themes captured my attention so much I'm delighted reading this kind of information.
ReplyDeleteBazi yeni formuller buldum. Birincisi, asal sayilari cokerten formul, bu formulle butun sifreler kirilabilir. formul son asamasinda ve bir kuantum bilgisayari gerekiyor.
ReplyDelete