one of the main drives behind me starting this blog was my anger against the self promoters of science. one that stand out throughout my posting was of course our infamous tolga yarman and more importantly his actions in editing wikipedia.
you may have followed his ordeals through my blog, but finally after he was listed for deletion by the wiki user aadagger, pretty seamlessly he was found not notable enough to be in wikipedia and his page was deleted. now noone will be able start the page tolga yarman.
this is not a triumph of `good science' but rather the proof that opensource information is more democratic. money and power to have a press release is not enough to be mentioned in cyberspace. there are democratic checks and balances.
Showing posts with label tolga yarman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolga yarman. Show all posts
7/19/09
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:
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.
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.
7/16/09
tolga yarman reloaded
with my utter inexperience in blogging i haven't noticed dear prof. Yarman's comments in my blog. even worse i had the nerve to edit the wikipedia article about him. of course he needed to fix my "utterly biased" edits, which weren't my words but doç. dr. cesimcan delidumrul's.
you will remember Yarman from his fringe theory on gravitation and relentless publicity stunts, moreover my former article on him.
here is parts of what he left in my talk board, named "ANSWER, TO PARTICULARLY, THE PERSON HIDING HIS NAME, AND CALLING HIMSELF FERAYEBEND, by Prof. Tolga YARMAN, July 13th, 2009." the "open letter starts out with "dear editor:"
you will remember Yarman from his fringe theory on gravitation and relentless publicity stunts, moreover my former article on him.
here is parts of what he left in my talk board, named "ANSWER, TO PARTICULARLY, THE PERSON HIDING HIS NAME, AND CALLING HIMSELF FERAYEBEND, by Prof. Tolga YARMAN, July 13th, 2009." the "open letter starts out with "dear editor:"
so it gets better and better. i owe him a response yes, but before that i need to convey in english what were my criticisms, which he failed to reply.unfortunately on saturday.Some people seem to be carried away so much to imagine that, I or my students, have started out this page. As you know, this is not true at all. In fact, I found it out, totally unexpectedly... I was flattered and happy, of course, when I crossed it... Chiefly, to convey as briefly and clearly as possible, the peculiarities of the approach, I have developed with my Colleagues, only then, I was indeed enthusiastic to add few lines to the text, thus already, so skillfully prepared by Wikipedia.
(...)
Ferayebend continues on saying
- I have added this criticisms into the article however I believe that mention of such a disregarded press conference by the scientific community is undue weight in the article, and should be taken out completely. The lack of international interest on Yarman further shows that this biography article is more appropriate for Turkish Wikipedia and not the English version. Ferayebend (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC).
What is this? Who is he? He does not even have the courage of revealing himself. Who does manipulate him? We talk about experimental factualities (and even we may not have, were we proposing merely a novel theory, this would have been quite fine, but we do present sımultaneously experimental results), and this person, considers him, as a universal arbiter, having no respect to other stand points, no respect to hearing, no respect to defense, no respect to trial, no respect to appeal, to establish about our work, and more audaciously, about our personalities, such an absolute outrageous verdict.
Moreover, I was not even alone (I could of course be, but I was not), when we conveyed our results to the public. Why then, according to him, I self publicize, and not the others?.. To me, clearly, Ferayebend’s behavior is just not normal. He is so much carried away with malice that, finally while linking his behavior to his earlier paraphernalia, he could not avoid, but makes the channel leading to his headquarter caught, red-handed.
There are thousands of statements processed by Google, on our work, and he thinks, his ill and only judgment, must take place alone, in the page, Wikipedia kindly offered to our work...
I am afraid, his behavior is not even honest, for while he cites a criticism, he seems to forget about our replies to it, and more importantly, he does not even refer to our response to his own criticisim (http://marxistsinspace.blogspot.com/2009/05/intoduction-to-tolga-yarman.html). He behaves as if, there is no such reply.
Wikipedia, should not allow such a misconduct...
In case that link’s content is lost, I will be happy to provide the copy I have of it. It may in effect not stay there for long!..
It is sad that, a singular pathological behavior, such as that of Ferayebend, can spoil, the flattering text, Wikipedia team originally prepared, which unfortunately now is mostly plucked. The family feelings are gone, the tonalities are gone, the original beauty is gone, and basically the essence of the work we achieved is gone.
The reply I have sent to Feraybend's criticism (http://marxistsinspace.blogspot.com/2009/05/intoduction-to-tolga-yarman.html), I hope, will allow Wikipedia team to judge things better.
Let me state one last thing, as now the professor of many dozens of full professors, with regards to Ferayebend, who presents himself as an astrophysicist. Let him detach himself at once, from his malevolent manipulator (and I am afraid I can guess who he is), and considers seriously our work. He may very well pin down that we are mistaking. This would not constitute any problem for us, scientists… We extend our gratitude, to anyone showing righteously that we are mistaking... But if Ferayebend cannot say anything concrete against our work, and results, then I should like to invite him, and people like him, no matter how biased they may be at the beginning, to contribute to the line of research we have so painfully drawn, over the years.
(...)
I can understand envy. I can understand jealousy. I can understand hard feelings. I can understand regret, for what we have done could have been done by many, throughout the passed very many decades … But pathology should be avoided.
(...)
I would like to be accorded by Wikipedia, the possibility of adding references to our work, that has appeared in respected journals, and substantiate the text with regards to the explanation of our work.
But first of all, I would like to ask Wikipedia team, to please reorganize this page, considering first the very original lovely text, they have so kindly offered, and the few additions and citations I made to it, and to protect it from, shameful, unscientific attacks.
Note please that even sentences related to my beloved parents, family, and son, and furthermore now, the names of my collaborators, had been utterly chopped.
I thank anyway, the Wikipedia team, with all my heart, for having considered my biography and work, seriously.
Tolga Yarman, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, 1972, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor, T.C. Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey
5/24/09
intoduction to tolga yarman
kind of a sad weekend. the graduation of the dear friend Claudia reminds us that our phd years are transitory once again. considerations about the future and day dreams on exotic post graduation possibilities are mandatory, in these situations.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)