[Turkmath:8241] Re: Obscurantism on Einstein Gravitation?

[yilmaz akyildiz]

Abdullah HARMANCI wrote:

Tartışılan konu: Einstein Gravitation

İlginizi çekebilir diye aşağıya aldım.
Tartışmayı tam anlayabilen liste üyesi bize ya da bana de kısaca özet
yaparsa memnun olurum.
İyi günler.
........................

Abdullah Hoca nın sorusuna cevap veremem...
Ruslar bu hususta neler diyor bilemem...
Ama sunu demeden de edemem:
Gel de simdi Yavuz Nutku yu anma, arama...

Ben sadece bu konuda
"Türkler her yerde"  tezine bir ilave yapmak isterim:

Biliyorsunuz Einstein in teorisinin yanliş / eksik oldugu hususunda eski
zamanlardan beri bizden de 2 fizikçi amerikada, biraz da dalga gecilerek,
 tanınır... (hemşehrim: behram kurşunoğlu ve adaşım: hüseyin yılmaz):

"Behram Kursunoglu was prescient and quite probably the first to realize
that the marriage of gravitation to particle physics required that a
fundamental invariant length or energy be an attendant at the wedding.  By this
extension, made over a quarter century ago, Kursunoglu was able to predict
that neutrinos, indeed must have mass.  The recent observation that
neutrinos have mass argues for a serious reexamination of Kursunoglu's
theory.

I close with a report on a recent communication I had with Behram, in which
he indicated to me that his theory predicts the existence of at least one
more type of neutrino, since the model requires an even number of flavors.
If a fourth neutrino is found, I suggest it be named the K neutrino."

http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C4%B1lmaz_k%C3%BCtle_%C3%A7ekim_kuram%C4%B1


On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Abdullah HARMANCI <
harmanci at hacettepe.edu.tr> wrote:

> Tartışılan konu: Einstein Gravitation
> İlginizi çekebilir diye aşağıya aldım.
> Tartışmayı tam anlayabilen liste üyesi bize ya da bana de kısaca özet
> yaparsa memnun olurum.
> İyi günler.
>
> ----- Orjinal Mesaj -----
> Kimden: sf-list at santilli-foundation.org
> Tarih: Sunday, January 15, 2012 6:22 pm
> Konu: [Santilli-Foundation] Obscurantism on Einstein Gravitation?
> Kime: sf-list at santilli-foundation.org
>
> > January 15, 2012
> > Unsubscribe and subscribe links are at bottom.
> > This message is also posted at
> > www.santilli-foundation.org/inconsistencies-gravitation.php<http://www.santilli-foundation.org/inconsistencies-gravitation.php>
> > Comments are welcome for private exchanges or
> > for authorized uploading in the above website.
> >
> *> OBSCURANTISM ON EINSTEIN GRAVITATION?
> > J.V. Kadeisvili
> *> The Institute for Basic Research
> > basicresearch at i-b-r.org*
> >
> *>
> *> 1) Prologue*
> > Following the great support I have received from my preceding message *Obscurantism
> at CERN on God's Particle?*(additional comments are welcome for
> authorized uploading at
> http://www.santilli-foundation.org/cern-obscurantism.php), allow me to
> bring to the attention of ethical sound scholars, administrator and
> governmental officers the intolerable condition in the use of public funds
> on Einstein gravitation. As clearly expressed by the Italian-American
> scientist R. M. Santilli in lecture [1], as well as by numerous other
> qualified physicists,  special relativity is a "majestic" theory," but
> Einstein gravitation is afflicted by truly  fundamental  inconsistencies
> published in refereed journals which have been accumulating during the past
> century, but which have remained completely ignored  by organized academic,
> financial and ethnic interests on Einstein (see Santilli's 1984 *Il Grade
> Grido*http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm). Under the
> illusion of academic credibility and authority based on their capillary
> organization,  said interests have opposed said inconsistencies via
> documented acts of sheer scientific banditisms [1], rather than dismissing
> the inconsistencies via papers equally published in refereed journals.
> >
> > Unfortunately, Americans have allowed said interests to acquire an
> organized control of most of the U. S. physics departments, scientific
> journals, newsmedia, financial institutions, the Congress, as well as the
> Nobel Foundation without any identification whatsoever of said interests
> let alone any attempt of addressing them. In a moment of extreme financial
> distress in the U. S. A. and, consequently, in the rest of the world mostly
> due to said organized control, the feeble hope of this message is to
> stimulate True Americans to regain their past scientific credibility and
> leadership, which can only be done by: A) Implementing a serious scientific
> democracy for qualified inquiries; B) Having the NSA, DOE and other Federal
> Agencies halt additional misuse of public funds by said interests solely
> aimed at maintaining their control of scientific thought; and C)
> Investigate  protracted abuses of public funds and academic credibility as
> the only way to prevent their undisturbed continuation.
> >
> > The separation between serious science and academic rants is clear cut.
> Serious science solely advances via publications in "serious refereed
> journals" (thus excluding arXiv, Wikipedia, YouTube & Co). Therefore,
> recipient of public financial support in gravitation who completely ignore,
> without even quoting, the structural inconsistencies of their work
> published in refereed journals following documentation of their awareness,
> violate various Federal Laws on counts that should be identified by True
> Americans to rather than by myself.
> >
> > A general review is available in monograph [7]. Detailed scientific
> information with all original publications available in free pdf download
> (whose detailed study is suggested to anybody prior to expressing vague
> negative opinions) are available from the website
> http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Announcements.php).
> >
> >
> *> 2) Unresolved historical inconsistencies*
> > In this section I present only some of the objections against
> Einstein's gravitation formulated immediately following its proposal of
> 1915, and subsequently established as being correct. These historical
> objections were suppressed by organized interests on Einstein and their
> authors  were discredited and silenced by various means, including loss of
> jobs  in academia and inability to publish their work.
> >
> > 2.A) *The bending of light is a purely Newtonian event in
> > flat Euclidean space and it is not due to curvature of space.*
> > Einstein (and his followers) claimed that Newtonian gravitation cannot
> attract light because "light has no mass." However, Newton's gravitation
> has been proved over centuries to be "universal" because gravitational
> attraction occurs for all physical entities, thus including light. Experts
> in gravitation are expected to know that energy, rather than mass, is the
> origin of gravity. Hence, Santilli (see Ref. [1] and papers quoted therein)
> rewrites Newton's equations in the identical  form
> >
> >                          (1) F = g* E1 E2 / r2, g* = g/c4,
> >
> > thus fully describing the gravitational attraction by a body with
> energy E1 on light with energy E2 = hv.
> >
> > The additional claim by Einstein (and his followers) is that the
> bending of light is due to curvature of space. Such a claim has been proved
> numerous times in refereed journals as being false, yet the inconsistencies
> have been ignored while their authors have been black  listed and silenced.
> The most recent evidence [1] can be summarized as follows. Einstein's
> gravitation is based on the complete reduction of gravity to pure curvature
> without source, with field equations (see, e.g., [2])
> >
> >                           (2) Gμν = Rμν - gμν R/2 = 0.
> >
> > The above equations have been proved in paper [3] of 1974 published at *MIT
> Annals of Physics* as being irreconcilably inconsistent with the
> electromagnetic origin of mass, not only for charged bodies, but also for
> *neutral* bodies. In fact,  all bodies are composed by charged particles
> in extremely dynamical conditions. Santilli has then proved that their
> electromagnetic fields is so large to characterize the entire gravitational
> mass even when the total charge is zero. This electromagnetic origin
> requires an energy-momentum source tensor T of first order in magnitude for
> *exterior* gravitation and an additional source tensor S for short range
> weak, strong and other interactions for  *interior* gravitation,
> according to the equations [3]
> >
> >                                (3) Gμν = Rμν - gμν R/2 = k**1 Tμν + k2 S
> μν, **
> >
> > where the k's are constants. The representation of the bending of light
> via curvature (see e.g.  ref.[2], under "Light Bending") is crucially
> dependent on Einstein equations (2) and it becomes invalid for Santilli's
> formulation (3). In any case, said representation is based on a plethora of
> ad hoc assumptions one can see in Ref. [2], each of which is highly
> questionable, thus lacking credibility even under the assumption that
> Eqs.(2) are the correct ones (e.g., the selected ad hoc metric is
> completely different than the Schwartzchild metric assumed as fundamental
> for other aspects of gravitation, etc.).
> >
> > It should be stressed that I *do not* claim Eqs. (2) as being wrong
> and Eqs. (3) be correct. No. We are here addressing the documented
> suppression of due scientific process on the future selection of the
> appropriate field equations by said organized interest solely intent in
> maintaining Einstein equations (2) for personal gains (as shown below,
> Santilli has proved that even Eqs.(3) have catastrophic inconsistencies, so
> that the issues of selection between Eqs.s(2) and (3) has no scientific
> value to my best knowledge).
> >
> > A word of caution should be voiced for True Americans against the
> acceptance of intentionally adulterated claims by  organized interests on
> Einstein, e.g., that Einstein's gravitation does admit a source tensor for
> the total charge and magnetic field of a body, which claim is true. The
> deception is due to the fact that the contribution to the gravitational
> field due to total charge and magnetic fields are of the order of 10^-30,
> thus being completely ignorable, for which very reason Einstein wrote his
> equation in the form (2) without source. By contrast,  Santilli's source
> term T is of such a first order to represent the entire gravitational mass
> of a body. The deception is then transparent from the fact that for neutral
> bodies Einstein gravitation admits no source at all, while such a source
> remains of first order for Santilli's results [3].
> >
> > 2.B) *The characterization of gravitation via curvature cannot
> > represent at the free fall of bodies along a straight radial line.*
> > In fact, the sole known representation of the free fall is that via
> Newton's gravitation in the flat Euclidean space.
> > .
> > 2.C) *Einstein gravitation cannot represent the weight of
> > a stationary body, such as our own weight on Earth.*
> > Again, the sole known representation of our own weight is that via
> Newton's equation in the flat Euclidean space.
> >
> > It appears obvious that, solely due (see below for more
> inconsistencies) to the lack of a serious representation of the bending of
> light, free fall and the weight of stationary bodies, Einstein gravitation
> has no known scientific value that could  justify large use of public funds.
> >
> > Since its appearance in 1974, Santilli sent repeated copies of paper
> [3] to all leading physicists in gravitation with  respectful letters
> requesting critical comments. Hence, organized interests on Einstein
> gravitation cannot claim their lack of knowledge of paper [3], with the
> sole outcome that Santilli was disqualified, black listed, prohibited from
> participating to federally funded meetings, and subjected to other
> vexations [1]. My feeble hope is that True American will investigate these
> occurrences for the protection of their scientific dignity , let alone to
> regain control of  their science and destiny.
> *>
> > 3) Unresolved late 20th century inconsistencies
> *>  In this section, I present a second group of inconsistencies, this
> time of dynamical character which have also been ignored for decades by
> organized interest on Einstein operating under protracted large public
> funds.
> >
> *> 3.A) The so-called "experimental verifications" of Einstein
> > gravitation constitute scientific deception on on numerous
> > dependent counts , each sufficient for their invalidation [4]. *
> > To begin, Einstein gravitation solely admits a "covariance" under
> which, as experts are expected to know, it is impossible to predict the
> same numerical values under the same conditions at different times. Thus,
> the claimed "experimental verifications" are at best valid at the fixed
> initial time. However, Einstein's equations (2) are nonlinear, thus
> requiring a linearization process for their solution. The dubbing of
> scientific deception is then appropriate if one notes that the so-called
> "experimental verifications" are based on the selection of *one* among
> many possible linearizations, and then the selection of *one* among many
> possible parameter expansion, and then the selection of *one* among many
> truncations thus having no scientific credibility beyond the level of
> organized interests on Einstein. Moreover, it is easy to prove that the
> so-called "experimental verifications" violate Eqs. (3) thus violating
> electromagnetism in an irreconcilable way, etc. (see Santilli [4] for
> "inconsistency theorems" rather than scientific deceptions).*
> >
> > 3.B) The so-called "black hole theory " has no
> > mathematical or physical consistency.*
> > The Schwartz metric at the foundation of "black holes" is solely a
> solution of Einstein equations (2) thus having no sense for Santilli
> equations (3) and, since it is unable to represent the bending of light,
> how can it possibly avoid light from truly escaping?
> > . Consequently, the politically celebrated "black hole theorems" are
> irreconcilably incompatible with the electromagnetic origin of mass, thus
> having no physical meaning. The very conception of the black hole theory is
> fundamentally flawed. Gravitational collapse is a problem strictly
> belonging to *interior* gravitation, thus requiring a geometry with a
> quite complex dependence on local quantities (see below). By contrast,
> black hole conjectures are derived from Eqs. (2) solely dealing  with the
> *exterior* gravitational problem via a metric g(r) solely depending on
> the distance, thus being dramatically insufficient for any serious
> description of interior conditions. Under these dramatic differences, any
> claim that the black hole theory is exactly valid is scientific corruption.
> In any case, it has been proved that the electromagnetic, weak and strong
> origin of the inertial mass along Eqs. (3) establishes the impossibility to
> have  a "black hole" as currently intended (a singularity) in favor of
> "brown holes," that is, the prediction by Newton-Santilli equations (1) of
> sufficiently  large stars collapsing into a sufficiently small, but finite
> region of space such to prevent light from escaping. In any case, the
> currently widespread cosmological view that the universe contains not only
> one singularity (read, infinity) but a potential infinite number of black
> holes (infinities) is pure political ideology by Einstein interests.
> >
> *> 3.C) Einstein general relativity is irreconcilably
> > incompatible with special relativity.*
> > This occurrence has been proved in numerous qualified works (Mailman,
> Barut, Santilli, et al)  all ignored by organized interests on Einstein
> using large public funds to support their expensive experiments and their
> publications. To begin, Einstein covariance will never ever be able to
> recover under any limit whatsoever the beautiful Poincare' invariance of
> special relativity. The so-called "total conservation laws" of Einstein's
> gravitation have been proved repeatedly as being incompatible with the
> total conservation laws of special relativity (the generators of the
> Poincare' symmetry). etc. In any case, the claim that Einstein gravitation
> admits "total conservation laws" is a scientific deception if proffered by
> experts,  because experts in the field are expected to know that said
> claimed quantities cannot possibly be conserved under covariance.
> >
> > The hope is that by reading  this message,True Americans, begin to
> understand the gravity of the reasons that led to the loss by the U.S.  of
> scientific credibility and leadership, with consequential need of proper
> corrective actions that can only be initiated by individuals,
> administrators or governmental officers outside said organized interests on
> Einstein.
> >   *
> > 4) **U**nresolved geometric inconsistencies.*
> > In this email we can only indicate the geometric inconsistencies of
> Einstein gravitation without details due to their complexity. Yet the
> latter insufficiencies are perhaps the most significant on physical
> grounds, equally differentiated and most representative of the political
> manipulations done by Einstein followers using  large public funds for
> almost a century.
> >
> *> 4.A) Geometric inconsistencies due to the Freud identity. *
> > The most authoritative treatises in gravitation, such as monograph [2],
> state that the Riemannian geometry at the foundation of Einstein
> gravitation (2) has *four* basic independent identities. This statement
> is false because the Riemannian geometry in actuality admits *five* basic
> independent identities. The fight was discovered by the Jewish physicist P.
> Freud with a brilliant work published in 1939 [5]. Yet, the latter identity
> was ignored for about three quarter of a century to be rediscovered by
> Santilli, submitted to independent scrutiny by various mathematicians (such
> as H. Rund et al), proved as being a true independent identity, and
> personally brought to the attention of leading researchers in gravitation,
> with the now customary outcome (continued organized ignorance of the
> identity, disqualification of its supporters, act of academic banditism
> and the like [1]). Why? *Because the Freud identity is irreconcilably
> incompatible with Einstein gravitation (1) since it requires the presence
> for all gravitation, including those for neutral bodies, of a first order
> tensor in the right hand side exactly given by Santilli's for of 1974 [3].
> *In this way,  Santilli first derived Eqs. (3) on strict physical
> requirements, and then discovered decades later that they are based on
> clear needs for the *geometric consistency* of any theory on a Riemann
> space.
> >
> *> 4.B) Geometric inconsistencies for interior conditions. *
> > Additionally, Santilli has spent decades of research to establish that
> the Riemannian geometry is fundamentally insufficient for any meaningful
> representation of interior gravitational problems due to the need for a
> very complex functional dependence of the metric on coordinates,
> velocities, energy, density, temperature, entropy, etc. beyond any dream of
> treatment with the Riemannian geometry.
> >
> *> 4.C) Geometric inconsistencies due to the inhomogeneity
> > and anisotropy of real gravitational bodies. *
> > Santilli has established the most subtle, but perhaps most lethal flaw
> of the Riemannian geometry for the "exact" representation of the
> gravitational field of real bodies in the universe, the strictly
> homogeneous and isotropic character of the geometry compared to the
> inhomogeneity and anisotropy of real masses in the universe, due to
> interior locally varying density, lack of perfectly spherical shapes,
> preferred axes due to rotations, etc. For instance, the idea that
> Einstein's gravitation is exactly valid for a highly spinning, thus highly
> non spherical neutron star is another example of corruption when proffered
> by experts. Hence realistic studies of gravitation require a geometry that
> is, by central requirements, inhomogeneous, anisotropic and admitting
> unrestricted functional dependence of the metric.
> >
> > As a foreign scientist, I am utterly distressed to see my dream of
> America as the Land of Democracy being shattered by rude evdience to the
> contrary. The Journals of the *American Physical Society* have routinely
> published for close to one century the most incredible (sometime
> commissioned)  deceptions, the most far fetched postures and the most
> incredible gyrations under the sole condition of "full" compatibility with
> organized interests on Einstein, while any paper with a spark of novelty
> against said interests has no chance even for a serious review, rejection
> being often arrogantly offensive (as I can testify), thus qualifying the
> abuse of the control of American science achieved via deceptions for
> non-American aims.
> >
> > Academic rant must be separated here from reality. In Lecture [1] prof.
> Santilli denounces the fact that the very name of "hadronic mechanics"
> (which resolves the above inconsistencies...) appear nowhere in any journal
> of the American Physical Society following some four decades from its
> inception, because o arrogant, scientifically vacuous rejections of hundred
> of papers by hundreds of scientists, the fanatic conduct by organized
> interest on Einstein being pushed to the extreme of prohibiting the
> publication of papers that merely quote Santilli, as I can personally
> testify, when hadronic mechanics has nowadays seen millions of dollars of
> corporate investment in three continents for its novel industrial
> applications! My God, what dictatorial conditions of the American science
> that can only be reminiscent of the dictatorial regimes of the 20th century!
> >
> *>
> > 5) Concluding comments*
> > In addition to  the above litany of catastrophic inconsistencies, I
> believe the most important scientific contributions by Santilli in
> gravitation are the following:
> >
> *> 5.A) Obscurantism on the historical chain of covering theories. *
> > The transition from Galileo to special relativity was implemented via
> the notion of a covering theory in the sense that special relativity
> recovers Galileo relativity uniquely and unambiguously when the speed
> became much smaller than the speed of light in vacuum. In his proposed
> general relativity Einstein brutally violated this historical rule due to
> the complete disconnect of general with respect to special relativity. In
> Santilli's view, which  I adopt, no theory of relativity will resist the
> test of time unless it is a covering of special relativity, in the sense of
> admitting the latter uniquely and unambiguously when gravitational forces
> are ignorable over other forces.
> >
> *> 5.B) Obscurantism on grand unification of
> > gravitation and electroweak interactions. *
> > In monograph [6] published by Springer in 2000, Santilli has
> additionally proved simply irreconcilable inconsistencies of any grand
> unification of electroweak and gravitational interactions, beginning with
> the first attempt by Einstein, whenever the latter are represented via the
> Riemannian geometry. For instance: the covariance of Einstein gravitation
> carries over under unification to the electroweak interactions with evident
> catastrophes; the noncanonical structure of Riemannian gravitation carries
> over under unification to the strictly canonical/unitary electroweak
> theories with proved catastrophes such as the violation of causality;
> Einstein gravitation has no differentiation whatsoever of the gravitational
> field of neutral bodies made up  of matter or antimatter, with
> consequential additional catastrophes when joined with electroweak theories
> that have a beautiful distinction between matter and antimatter.; etc. I
> agree with Santilli that no grand unification can be credibly attempted
> without first achieving a structural revision of gravitation.
> >
> *> 5.C) Obscurantism on operator image of classical gravity. *
> > In the 2000 monograph [6] with Springer, Santilli had additionally
> proved that the Riemannian geometry prevents any serious operator image of
> gravity, for numerous additional reasons. Recall that quantum mechanics can
> indeed be correctly claimed as being an operator image of classical
> Hamiltonian mechanics because the latter has a *canonical*structure, thus
> leading uniquely and unambiguously under quantization to the *unitary* structure
> of quantum mechanics. By contrast, Einstein gravitation is structurally*
>  noncanonical* (being a deformation of Minkowski). Consequently the only
> credibly claimed operator image must have a *nonunitary* structure, with
> consequential violation of causality and other basic physical laws.
> Additionally, Santilli has proved that claims of "quantum" gravity are
> basically false because the very notion of quantized energy levels is given
> under an operator image of gravity. I again agree with Santilli that non
> structural revision of gravity will resist the test of time unless it
> admits a 100% consistent operator image.
> >
> > By keeping in mind all the above TWELVE primary structural
> inconsistencies or fundamental insufficiencies out of many, Prof.
> Santilli's view, which I share fully, is that *organized interests on
> Einstein have caused a scientific obscurantism, of historical proportions
> that will endure for the foreseeable future until True American will impose
> the regaining of scientific credibility and leadership by imposing a
> serious scientific democracy for qualified inquiries*
> >
> > Via the discovery (as a physicist) of beautifully new mathematics when
> he was at the department of mathematics of Harvard University under DOE
> support, Santilli has resolved all these problems by achieving dramatically
> new vistas in gravitation. The current lack of academic and scientific
> accountability sadly discourages me from expanding on this subject.
> >
> > The historical, physical and geometric inconsistencies of Einstein
> gravitation were studied in details, mathematically, theoretically and
> experimentally, at the recent *San Marino Workshop on Astrophysics and
> Cosmology for Matter and Antimatter September 5 to 9, 2011*
>  http://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/<http://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/> (of
> course, the proceedings have been them moved to another journal kept secret
> to the day of publication) For True Americans to understand the gravity of
> the collapse of  U. S. accountability, responsibility, credibility and
> leadership, they must be informed that organized, U. S. interests on
> Einstein have interfered with the publication in the proceeding openly
> (thus naively) announced at *The Open Astronomy Journal* (now rescheduled
> in another journal). Because of that unpunished success, the same interests
> have additionally interfered with the Republic of San Marino to such an
> extent to request an international Investigative Agency to identify the
> responsible individual for public disclosure, denunciation and other lawful
> response. Since said interests evidently do not have technical arguments,
> they have to limit themselves to anonymous  acts of scientific banditism.
> I hope this illustrates the most important statement by Prof. Santilli in
> Lecture [1] of February 29, 2011 to the effect that*"Unless organized
> interests on Einstein are contained,* *America is doomed."* Regrettably,
> I agree since under the current conditions there is no room for scientific
> innovation.
> >
> > Following the fifty years of research by Prof. Santilli that have
> resulted in new mathematics, physics and technologies (such as new clean
> American fuels of evident national relevance, new chemical species with
> countless of novel applications, new fusions without radiation, etc.), all
> "beyond Einstein," the main position of* The R. M. Santilli Foundation*is
> that* the only way for America and the rest of the world to resolve their
> catastrophic financial condition is the promotion of a technological
> renaissance that, in turn, requires the promotion of a scientific
> renaissance that, also  in turn, can only occur nowadays by surpassing
> Einsteinian theories, of course, not under the conditions  experimentally
> verified, but under broader conditions unthinkable during Einstein time,
> never directly tested.
> * >
> > However, as documented in this message and in so much independent
> denunciations, *organized interests on Einstein oppose such a scientific,
> therefore technological and therefore financial rebirth thus constituting a
> serious threat for America and mankind. *Hence, I agree with Prof.
> Santilli's 1984 *Il Grande Grido* repeated in 2011 in Lecture [1] due to
> complete oblivion by Americans for the past 27 years  with the catastrophic
> outcome seen the world over,  not only for the collapse of U. S. scientific
> credibility, but also for the catastrophic financial conditions of the
> Country which, as indicated earlier, are primarily due to excessive
> exploitations of America by the same organized interest. Unless the true
> origin of the scientific and financial collapse is openly identified with
> clarity, and a democratic as well as lawful containment is implemented,
> America is indeed doomed!
> >
> >
> *> J, V. Kadeisvili
> *> The Institute for Basic Research
> > basicresearch at i-b-r.org*
> >
> *>
> >
> > REFERENCES
> >
> > [1] R. M. Santilli,* Limitations of General Relativity,* Lecture I D of
> the*
> **> World Lecture Series
> > http://www.world-lecture-series.org/<http://www.world-lecture-series.org/>
> *
> >
> > [2] C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and A. Wheeler, *Gravitation, *Freeman,
> San Francisco, (1970)
> >
> > [3] R. M. Santilli, "Partons and Gravitation: some Puzzling Questions,"
> > (MIT) Annals of Physics, Vol. 83, 108-157 (1974),
> > http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf<http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-14.pdf>
> .
> >
> > [4] R. M. Santilli, Nine Theorems of inconsistencies in General
> Relativity and their possible resolution via Isogravitation, Galilean
> Electrodynamics, Vol 17 No. 3, page 43 (2006_
> www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Incons.GravFinalGED-I.pdf
> >
> > [5] P. Freud, Ann. Math. 40 (2), 417 (1939)
> >
> > [6] R. M. Santilli *Isodual Theory of Antimatter with Application to
> Antigravity,
> > Grand Unification and the Spacetime Machine,* Springer 2001*
> *> http://www.santilli-foundation.org/<http://www.santilli-foundation.org/>
> docs/santilli-79.pdf
> >
> > [7] I. Gandzha and J Kadeisvili,  *New Sciences for a New Era:
> > Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Discoveries of Ruggero Maria
> Santilli*
> > Sankata Printing Press, Nepal (2011)*,*
> > http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf<http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/FoundationBook-12-10.pdf>
> >
>
> >
>
> *> UNSUBSCRIBE*
> > To unsubscribe, please send a request to
> *> sf-list-request at santilli-foundation.org *
> > with the word 'unsubscribe' in the subject or body section (don't
> include the quotes).
>
> *> SUBSCRIBE*
> > To subscribe, please send a request to
> *> sf-list-request at santilli-foundation.org *
> > with the word 'subscribe' in the subject or body section (don't include
> the quotes).
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > The R. M. Santilli Foundation's mailing list
> > Sf-list at santilli-foundation.org
> > http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/sf-list
>
> P.S...Support  www.ieja.net by publishing  papers.
>
> Prof.Dr.Abdullah Harmancı
>
> Hacettepe Üniversitesi
> Matematik Bölümü
> Beytepe,Ankara
> Türkiye.
>
> harmanci at hacetepe.edu.tr,
>
> www.ieja.net
>
> http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~harmanci/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Turkmath mailing list
> Turkmath at listweb.bilkent.edu.tr
> http://yunus.listweb.bilkent.edu.tr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/turkmath
>
>
-------------- sonraki bölüm --------------
Bir HTML eklentisi temizlendi...
URL: <http://yunus.listweb.bilkent.edu.tr/cgi-bin/mailman/private/turkmath/attachments/20120317/d72c1809/attachment-0001.htm>