tolga yarman revolutions part 1

it took me a long time to answer dear professor yarman, but to be honest i did not expect an answer or a rebuttal of such a degree of psychosis going even to the extent that i am a personal enemy of his. presently i am feeling more and more like otisabi facing ajdar and saying "i wish you were acting, but i see now that you are real."

now i am really sorry from yarman that i have upset him and caused him personal agony to an extent that he felt the urge to give out his misinformed concept of what wikipedia is, and tell that i am manipulated by his personal enemies. i know turkish science politics are revolving around the insignificant prepherial scientific topics but i would never would have guessed i would be part of one. and i am so glad that i am far away from turkey and the social structure of the turkish university.

having said that he needs understand that he has the responsibility of a professor to uphold the ethics and behaviourism of what a normative scientific community expects from him, i.e. not to come out with borderline fringe theories in front of the turkish public and more importantly without international recognition or discussion. unfortunately i am the only physicist with half a brain to read his articles and commented on them publicly.

point 1: okan university press conference title read: "turkish scientist debunked einstein's theory(türk bilim adamı einstein’in teorisini çürüttü)"

are you aware of the press release that your university published, if yes why did you let them use this title? if you knew perfectly well that this sensational approach was taken, why are you commenting on my blog that you never intended to disprove Einstein:

"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."

if you are honestly behind what you are saying, why are you manipulating the public, or collaborating with the manipulation of the public?

point 2: your papers are hard to reach

this is not a question of individual inconvenience but a problem of visibility and verifiability. if you are publishing your work in obscure journals and non peer reviewed conference proceedings how do you expect the scientific community to respond to your claims? i am not an individual but i work in a university institute and the university do not have a springer account to these specific articles and i don't blame them. since looking at your articles ignore the most basic principles of special theory of relativity (STR), one wonders how can these journals expect the institutions to pay for this kind of lack of quality.

and by the way i reached your most important articles as one can see in my sourtimes article and i was explicit in your mistakes.

anyhow according to this point i challenge you to submit your papers to the physical review letters, which i and honestly most of the community adheres as the reliable journal for physics even before approaching the high level of e.g. nature.

point 3: your papers have factual and computational mistakes

in your blog reply, you mention that i did not "pin down" your mistakes. it is simply not true, i don't know what did you read but in my criticism which was simply a click away (unlike your papers which are in obscure conference proceedings). in my comments in sourtimes (which is under the title görelilik ilkesinin çürütülmesi [the disproof of relativity]) your mistakes and more importantly how you did end up with correct results from wrong starting point was explained explicitly.

to make the point clear to the bystanders, yarman suggests that weak equivalence principle is not satisfied, which translates as a difference between inertial and gravitational masses. he further argues that this effect is due to the gravitational binding energy, which is the reason of the centrifugal acceleration. and the velocities induced by this acceleration translates into a "mass defect" as some misinterpretations of STR suggest (which lev okun talked wrote about how wrong this misconception is, extensively). from yarman's annales foundation louis de broglie (2004, v 29, no 3) article page 487:



in his "theory" due to the gravitational accelerations effect on the mass, the equivalence of these masses rather depend on the velocity and he proposes some ways to measure it.

i am really sorry Tolga but your "theory" is debunked just starting from your results, i.e. measuring the difference between inertial and gravitational masses. your predictions should have been observed since the reference you give Braginsky Panov experiment reaches the precision of $$10^{-12}$$ which is lower than what you propose $$2.6\times10^{-12}$$. even worse you suggest that only $$10^{-4}$$ precision is reached in the lunar laser ranging experiment while $$10^{-8}$$ is needed but unfortunately the precision of the lunar laser experiments to measure the acceleration differences of moon vs earth reach $$5\times10^{-13}$$ surpassing far above the limit you need to prove your theories. in your defense, i think you are confusing the weak equivalence with strong equivalence, that is applied for the gravitating bodies and related closely to the experiments which search for changes in gravitational constant $$G$$.

i encourage all the readers to check the williams, newhall, dickey, 1996, physical review d. article "relativity parameters determined from lunar laser ranging" abstract, which includes the summary of the results and is public.

without even showing the problems of conceptualizations and the absurdities of your reasoning, your theory already discredited.

i will return the conceptual misunderstandings of yarman, and his computational errors.

as a preliminary analysis, i don't want to personalize this case, i hope he doesn't take spite in what i present here, since now it should be clear that this is not a personal attack but rather based on facts. i took great interest in this case simply due to the fact that yarman by his actions constitutes what is wrong in science today. publicity without substantiality or verifiability.

note: i am sorry for the latex typesetting, i am in the process of installing mathtex.