Reviews

User reviews

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

The proof of my definitions of the electric current as a flow of electric current as electromagnetic waves of electric potential and the magnetic flux as electromagnetic waves of magnetic potential are verified by results of Faraday's Experimental Researches in Electricity published in the Philosophical Transactions (Vol 136, pp. 1-20) in 1846-1852. He found in these published experiments that electrifying a beam of light converts it into an electric current and magnetizing a beam of light converts it into magnetic flux. However; he was not able in his time to interpret such results into defining the electric current and magnetic flux as electromagnetic waves of electric or magnetic potentials but according to my submitted entropy approach and my review of the thermodynamics of electromagnetism, I find it is logic to postulate such definition according to my experiments and as these definitions delete the duality confusion, it found a robust definition of the magnetic flux and the electric charge, it deletes redundancies in the SI system of units. From the dimensional point of view; using SI system of units, the dimensions on the L.H.S. are not identical to the dimensions on the R.H.S. of the Ampere's law. Using an introduced system of units, universal system, that depends on the definitions of the electric current and magnetic flux as electromagnetic waves of corresponding potentials, the Ampere’s law was modified by inserting the reluctance Rm in the left side of the law to homogenize the dimensions on both sides of the equation when written as follows: A. Rm dB/dt = - V. Similarly; my definitions introduced innovative understanding of the photo-voltaic effect and the magneto-calorific effect that lead to improve the efficiency of the devices that depend on such effects.  

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

What is the purpose of this list? First of all, it includes both scientists and authors who aren't scientists and never presented themselves as such (e.g. David Icke). So what? Is it meant to disparage all the people listed therein, where David Icke is a controversial author ridiculed by most of the intellectual/scientific establishment (whether he deserves it or not, about which I am not commenting), and true scientists are thus told to be "on the same level" as him? And what is the intent of this list? To denounce all those who dare to not think as everyone is supposed to think and believe? This is so lame.  

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

The Worldwide List of Thinkers that dare to investigate freely and without bias toward other scientists or theories of said investigators of nature. Great job, Jean de Climont!

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

http://www.trendsinphysics.info/
Critical examination of fundamentals in physics
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics
Vlcek L.: New trends in physics - Slovak version
Great table of elementary particles
Shortened great table of elementary particles
Orbit radius and speed of the Sun around the center of gravity of the Solar System
Introduction to my two articles Physics is easy and Physics is beautifull
Physics is easy
Physics is beautifull
Neutrino Oscillations
Nuclear fusion
Gluons, Mezons, Baryons Gallery
Spheres in nuclei
The theory of Mgr. Ľubomír Vlček published in the book New trends in physics performed in cooperation with Ing. Branislav Sobota, PhD., an employee of TU Košice will enable you as the first ones the insight into the stabile spheric nuclei of isotopes and isobars of practically all the elements known so far with pair and impair number of nucleons.
Author: Ľubomír Vlček
 

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

Climont has done an excellent work in compiling the names of all dissent scientists. All dissident scientists must have come up with some rational, theoretical, mathematical & experimental proofs against the adopted paradigms of physical & biological sciences but it seems no one is paying any attention. I wish he had included following open challenge which I am sure may finally do the job.
The very space-time concept on which theories of relativity are based has been mathematically, theoretically & experimentally proved as baseless and openly challenged on the basis of published scientific articles. Since the very space-time concept has been proved as baseless the question of curvature of space-time being correct does not arise. Gravity has been shown to be an electromagnetic force as foreseen by Maxwell due to the curl/vortices of aether (the electric dipoles) in the published article 'Revised Foundation of Theory of Everything: Non-living Things & Living Things' (www.indjst.org; Sep 2010) Revised version of this article is available on vixra & World Science Database in my profile. Following is the open challenge which everyone could see at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=6476&tab=2 and http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4018 .
OPEN CHALLENGE
The article 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' by Albert Einstein is based on trickeries is proved beyond any doubt whatsoever in the articles (1). Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe published in the peer-reviewed journal namely Indian Journal of Science & Technology (March 2012 issue) available on www.indjst.org (2) On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies By Albert Einstein is Based on Trickeries (Open letter to Professors, Teachers, Researchers and Students of Physics) published in peer-reviewed journal Elixir Online Journal (February 2012 issue) available on www.elixirjournal.org. The Voigt transformation was simply a mathematical possibility which was changed by Lorentz by introducing the Lorentz factor but the Lorentz factor is simply a manipulation. Thus nature and forces in nature were trivialized and made subservient to mathematics in the theories of relativity, Big Bang Theory, Space-time concept and in all physical sciences which are directly or indirectly based on the 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies'. It is unfortunate for humanity that exposing these trickeries took more than one hundred years.
I openly challenge all the professors, researchers & teachers of physics/philosophy of physics to come forward & show me where I am wrong or else they have to accept that they are teaching incorrect physics based on trickeries.
My challenge may not be treated as a publicity stunt, but I sincerely wish that truth should prevail on this planet and am expecting identical response from all truth loving people/intellectuals. I do understand that it is hard for mainstream physicists to reconcile with the alternative philosophy; though actual and factual; as almost all the living physicists and researchers are borne, brought up and taught physics which is fundamentally incorrect. Their livelihood is based on the physics which has been adopted as the result of fraud, but these material interests should never be a stumbling block to acknowledge the reality, which to my understanding is the essence of scientific thinking and honest living for the betterment of entire human society.
I have not an iota of doubt that sooner or later the truth will prevail, but it would be in the interest of humanity that truth is accepted now so that humanity comes out of clutches of materialism which in itself is naked atheism.
Mohammad Shafiq Khan
I would like to keep you informed that the open challenge has been sent to almost all professors of physics & universities of the world and so far two retired professors of physics namely Jeremy Dunning
 

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

My entire hypothesis (detailed somewhere else as part of a poetry e-book) would be indirectly substantiated if it is shown that the characteristics of Dark Energy at a supernova explosion are different than those much further away. Otherwise; too bad for me!
Dr. Gurdev Boparai
(Page 164 of this list)
 

All reviews - 6
4 stars - 0
3 stars - 0
2 stars - 0
1 star - 1

All reviews - 6
Editorial reviews - 0

All reviews - 6