Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A paper overthrows the General Relativity

  1. Jun 15, 2005 #1

    I wrote a paper for solving the problems remained by the General relativity. It also overthrows the General theory of Relativity's concepts. This paper is still reviewing by a journal. I hope you can give views to my paper.

    My website is: http://98.to/pau [Broken]

    My paper is in this link:
    http://www2.hkedcity.net/citizen_files/aa/oy/yj2004/public_html/advanced_gravity_theory.pdf [Broken]

    My paper's Author Cover Letter:
    http://www2.hkedcity.net/citizen_files/aa/oy/yj2004/public_html/author_cover_letter.pdf [Broken]

    Thanks very much.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 15, 2005 #2
    Hahaha, that is hillarious!

    "Advanced gravity theory v.2005.05.29
    Offering solutions for the problems be remained by General theory of relativity
    Wing-Sin YU (Personal website: 98.to/pau)
    Department: Physical Advanced Union (website: 98.to/pau)"

    Holy cow, i'm sorry they moved this to TD, cause this is one that should be seen by everyone.
  4. Jun 15, 2005 #3
    Consider writing this paper in your native language. That way atleast people can understand you before they laugh at you.
    I think drawing spacetime needs a bit more graphical power than MSpaint can provide.

    Your paper's form of argument is basically as follow, and I quote,
    Do you realize that you are not proving anything? You are not making any claims. Your intro claims to explain these phenomenon that modern science can't, however all you are doing is just saying "they don't exist, problem solved." Imagine that.

    Now note, I haven't taken any advanced physics courses, but I can explain your doubts in Section 3;

    The singularity doesnt have no volume, it has infinitely small volume, but a volume nonetheless.

    Matter doesnt bump into black holes, it gets sucked into them. Again, it doesnt have "no volume".

    The singularity has mass in it, as it implodes it draws in all the mass that it held, at infinitely high densities. Space itself doesnt have mass (as far as I know) but mass exists in space.

    Have you had a formal physics education?
    If so, I highly suggest taking courses like Physics 101-799.
    If not, do you really think you will debunk 50 years of physics without one?
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2005
  5. Jun 15, 2005 #4
    Whozum, your physics discussion is well-stated, but you have no reason to talk about the man's educational background, unless it is in a kind manner. Say "I highly suggest taking a course like this one, or reading this book" rather than "ask your educators to quit, or stop talking about physics".
  6. Jun 15, 2005 #5
    I agree with some of your objections to the more exotic properties of GR. However it is far from enough. We have to construct an experiment and calculate results that if confirmed, will falsify one of GR's predictions such as dark matter and black holes with infinite density.

    Any successor to BBT will, among other things, need to explain:

    1) The CMBR, and why it has a perfect black body spectrum
    2) Primordial elememental abundance
    3) Supernovae Ia observations
    4) Large scale structure

    Good luck...
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Jun 16, 2005 #6
    It has zero volume.
  8. Jun 16, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What journal is reviewing it?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  9. Jun 16, 2005 #8
    Thanks for your opinion. But I think I should consider to accept that what opinion is reasonable.

    This paper is suffering difficulties in publication. Could you suggest some suitable journals for my paper?
  10. Jun 16, 2005 #9
    Base on the secue reason, sorry, I can't tell you now...
  11. Jun 16, 2005 #10
    This voice is familiar...
    I admit my paper is rejected by some editors, and some editors used strong attitude to reject my paper.

    I have had preparation to abandon to publish my paper, if it still hasn't any dawn.
  12. Jun 16, 2005 #11
    That is because essentially there's no science in it.
  13. Jun 16, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Whozum didn't say anything about the man's educational background! You may have misinterpreted his statement that he (whozum) hadn't taken any advanced physics courses.
  14. Jun 16, 2005 #13

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Difficulties in publication? After a brief scan of your paper, I can say (and I'm certain most here will agree) you have absolutely no chance of getting this published in a proper science journal. As James Jackson said, there is NO science in it!

    You can have an opinion, and you can make a speculation, but that does not make it a theory. YOur opinions and speculations simply prove to everyone here that you do not understand the theories of Special OR general relativity. A speculation should have (at least) a proper mathematical reason to dispute the claims of SR/GR.

    Your speculation has no math at all; the only support you provide are very crude digrams and cute sayings like "I can go freedon." THis is NOT science.

    Please, do go ahead and publish this, but you'll have to pay for it yourself. When it gets published, pass it around to your friends, stand on the street corner and give it to strangers. This is what true freedom means: "Anyone is allowed to say anything!" Congratulations!

    Good bye.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2005
  15. Jun 16, 2005 #14

    Evidences are just the realization.
    If anyone does experiments to prove that it is right or it cannot succeed, then it is just better than arguments.
  16. Jun 16, 2005 #15
    Holy cow.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook