Open Challenge

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

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 Conce...pt 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,

(M.Sc. Physics)

[D H]

Sorry, you're wrong. Relativity is one of the most strongly tested theories in all of physics. Just because you don't understand it or because it doesn't fit with your worldview doesn't mean that it is wrong.

[Greg H.]

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'.

Science is not a tournament where you toss down your gauntlet and demand that others pick it up and prove you wrong.

 

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.

 

I'm not even sure what this has to do with any of the rest of what you said. Could you elaborate for the rest of us how atheism and materialism are preventing humanity from uncovering the truth about the universe through rigorous scientific study?

[D H]

Science is not a tournament where you toss down your gauntlet and demand that others pick it up and prove you wrong.

Nicely said.

 

This is especially the case when the gauntlet is tossed in some crackpot journal. This recent onslaught of crackpot / extremely low quality journals is problematic, and the technical publication industry certainly is not helping with their rather extreme price gouging.

[CaptainPanic]

Ok guys,

Apart from the provocative opening post, and the large amount of off-topic comments, did anyone already look at the articles themselves?

 

Article 1 is here (direct link, .pdf, seems for free). It's quite a long read.

 

However, article 2 requires a subscription (and no confirmation from your random fantasy email is needed - hint), but it's only 11 lines of text, with just 4 lines of actual math. If this is indeed crackpottery, then do us all a favor, and point out the mistake.

 

You find article 2 by going here, clicking on "february" in the bottom left corner, scroll all the way down in the list, click on the number 3 (3rd page) and then ctrl-F (search) for Einstein.

[D H]

Article 1 is a straw man misinterpretation of the principle of relativity. From the abstract,

 

The other postulate of ‘laws by which physical systems undergo change are not affected when referred to different inertial reference frames’ is in contradiction with all the derivations in the article. Since the change in any physical system; due to whatever reason; could be mainly in reference to the space and time of that physical system; whereas article derives that space and time of any physical system would be different when referred to different inertial reference frames.

Einstein's postulate says that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. It does not say that space and time are the same in all inertial frames.

 

Another problem in this first paper is that the author assumes that space and time are absolute and then uses this assumption to prove that space and time are absolute.

 

 

Article 2 is also at vixra: http://vixra.org/pdf/1202.0004v1.pdf

 

From that paper,

 

None of the physicists, till date, seem to have bothered as to from where Einstein had got the ‘Equation of Trickery’.

That ‘Equation of Trickery’ follows directly from the first cited equation in the limit of infinitesimally small x'. It's quite simple. There is no trickery other than perhaps the use of partial derivatives and the standard physicist semi-abuse of infinitesimals. Yes, partial derivatives are tricky. Yes, physicists abuse infinitesimals all the time. Nonetheless, it works. Non-standard analysis shows why we physicists have been able to get away with this for so long. Note that there are more rigorous derivations of the Lorentz transformation from Einstein's postulates that avoid the use of infinitesimals. They're longer, and they don't add anything other than being more rigorous. There isn't anything fundamentally wrong with Einstein's formulation.

Edited June 8, 2012 by D H

[D H]

As a follow-on, here's the derivation of that ‘Equation of Trickery’.

 

The first equation in the paper is the first equation in section I.3 of Einstein's 1905 paper,

 

[math]

\frac 1 2 \biggl[\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) + \tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t+\frac{x'}{c-v} + \frac{x'}{c+v}\Bigr)\biggr] =

\tau\Bigl(x',0,0,t+\frac{x'}{c-v}\Bigr)

[/math]

 

This is just [imath]1/2(\tau_0+\tau_2) = \tau_1[/imath] (light always travels at c), with [imath]\tau[/imath] expressed as a function of x',y,z, and t.

 

Now do a first order Taylor expansion of [imath]\tau[/imath] about (0,0,0,t). The left hand side becomes

 

[math]

\begin{aligned}

\frac 1 2 \biggl[\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) + \tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t+\frac{x'}{c-v} + \frac{x'}{c+v}\Bigr)\biggr]

&= \frac 1 2 \biggl[\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) + \tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) +

\Bigl(\frac{x'}{c-v} + \frac{x'}{c+v}\Bigr)\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} + \mathcal O(x'^2)\biggr] \\

&= \tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) + \frac 1 2 \Bigl(\frac{x'}{c-v} + \frac{x'}{c+v}\Bigr)\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} + \mathcal O(x'^2)

\end{aligned}

[/math]

 

The right hand side becomes

 

[math]

\tau\Bigl(x',0,0,t+\frac{x'}{c-v}\Bigr) =

\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) +

x'\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial x'} +

\frac{x'}{c-v}\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} +\mathcal O(x'^2)

[/math]

 

Equating left and right hand sides,

 

[math]

\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) + \frac 1 2 \Bigl(\frac{x'}{c-v} + \frac{x'}{c+v}\Bigr)\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} =

\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr) +

x'\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial x'}+

\frac{x'}{c-v}\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} + \mathcal O(x'^2)

[/math]

 

The [imath]\tau\Bigl(0,0,0,t\Bigr)[/imath] terms on the two sides cancel, and in the limit [imath]x'\to0[/imath], the higher order terms vanish. What's left is

 

[math]

\frac 1 2 \Bigl(\frac{x'}{c-v} + \frac{x'}{c+v}\Bigr)\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} =

x'\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial x'}+

\frac{x'}{c-v}\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t}

[/math]

 

Factoring out the common factor of x' yields

 

 

[math]

\frac 1 2 \Bigl(\frac{1}{c-v} + \frac{1}{c+v}\Bigr)\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t} =

\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial x'}+

\frac{1}{c-v}\frac{\partial \tau}{\partial t}

[/math]

 

This is the equation that the author of the paper entitled the ‘Equation of Trickery’.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

@ D H

 

The reply to your querry is in the article 'Experimental....' in detail. One Mr. Jeremy Dunning- Davies come up with the smilar objection and he was adequtely replied so much so that the University of Hull (Department of Physics) to which he claimed to be represening disowned him. The same objection of Mr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies has been replied; to which he had no answer . The objections & replies are in the form of articles which are avaiable on www.jsjournal.net & viXra. However following reply should be sufficient to you since you know some pysics & mathematics.

 

The second trickery is exposed in the article „On the Electrodynamics by Albert

Einstein is Based on Trickeries‟ (Open letter to Professors, Teachers, Researchers and Students

of Physics) [2] which would require some clarification for easy understanding. I would

reproduce the two sentences in section 3 of the article “On the Electrodynamics of Moving

Bodies” [4] wherein second trick has been played.

“If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system k must have a system

of values x', y, z, independent of time. We first define (tau) as a function of x', y, z, and t.”

In these two sentences the second trickery is hidden. He accepts that point x', y,

z is at rest in the moving coordinate system k which implies that point x', y, z is independent of

time (tau) in the moving coordinate system. Evidently point x', y, z is always at a fixed distance

from the origin of the moving coordinate system k and as such (tau) is not a function x', y, z as

this is a fixed point in the moving coordinate system k. In the following sentences he plays the

trick of making (tau) a function of x',y,z and t as variables. This is explained partly in the

clarification which stands also published by Elixir Online Journal in February issue on page 6809

under the heading comments.

 

 

 

 

 

The coments reveal that the open chalenge has been taken as a trivial matter. I will like to inform the members of

 

the forum that all the universities are in total knowledge of the open challenge and the open challenge stands circulated to most of the professors of physics of the world. They have absolutely no answer. In so far as the reputed & main-stream journals are corcerned they in no case publish the articles which challenge th main-stream paradigm even if the articles are perfect & correct.

 

Einstein's basic articles have been shown to be mathematically, experimentally and theoretically incorrect andan alternative proposed which is consistent with theory & experiment. The thorough understanding of the articles is the pre-requisite to make any genuine & logical comments.

[John Cuthber]

http://xkcd.com/675/

[uncool]

The second trickery is exposed in the article

 

Now wait a second.

 

We have responded in detail to the "first trickery". You haven't answered the response. Stay on this topic for now.

 

Do you agree that it has been demonstrated that the equation that you have called "the equation of trickery" has been adequately demonstrated, given the assumptions that had been named beforehand? If not, then what is wrong with D H's demonstration? If so, do you plan on making sure that this is corrected?

=Uncool-

[Greg H.]

Now wait a second.

 

We have responded in detail to the "first trickery". You haven't answered the response. Stay on this topic for now.

 

Do you agree that it has been demonstrated that the equation that you have called "the equation of trickery" has been adequately demonstrated, given the assumptions that had been named beforehand? If not, then what is wrong with D H's demonstration? If so, do you plan on making sure that this is corrected?

=Uncool-

 

And while we're on the subject of unanswered questions, can we return for a moment to my question in post 3 of this thread about what any of this has to do with materialism and atheism obfuscating the truth of physics? I'm still kind of wondering what that has to do with any of the rest of it, or if this whole thing is just random thought wanderings scribbled down on the back of an electronic napkin.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

@Uncool-

 

First trickery is the voilation of the very postulate of constancy of velocity of light; which Einstein introduced in his article; to arrive at the equation (which forms the first equation of the comment of DH) and second trickery is described above in my reply. The trickeries are thoroughly discussed in the article 'Experimental....'. Please read the article very carefully and then we could discuss at lenght.

 

The simple answer is that Einstein defined x' as a constant in the reference frame k; since point x' is always at same distance from the origin of moving reference frame k so x' is not a variable with respect to time (tau) of the moving coordinate system k but he made x' as a variable and thereby made tau a function of x'.

 

@Uncool-

 

In so far as your comment about connection between materialism & atheism is concerned. This issue is discussed in the connected & referred article 'Foundation of Theory of Everything:...' in the article 'Experimental.....' In brief the Theories of Relativity were put forward as the consequence of absence of luminiferuous aether; which in most modern physics had to reintroduced in the form of Dark Matter & Dark Energy to explain the motion of outer stars in the galaxies; but once the aether is accepted then the existence of other substances which do not have eletromagnetic properties and cannot be seen are the natural consequences. Thus besides matter there have to be other substances which cannot be seen wherein is contained the secret of existence of God. Big Bang Theory is the outcome of disturbing the absolute nature of space and if space is shown to be absolute then Big Bang Theory has no foundation whatsoever and that is exactly has been done through the articles mentioned in the Open Challenge and connected articles.

[Moontanman]

 

Thus besides matter there have to be other substances which cannot be seen wherein is contained the secret of existence of God. Big Bang Theory is the outcome of disturbing the absolute nature of space and if space is shown to be absolute then Big Bang Theory has no foundation whatsoever and that is exactly has been done through the articles mentioned in the Open Challenge and connected articles.

 

 

you say 'baseless theory of relativity" I say you are actually asserting a "baseless theory of god" how about baseless theory of a Brobdingnagian creature that eats dark matter and excretes universes? I was looking forward to seeing this be a battle of actual evidence then you made the assertion that somehow atheism and world view had something to do with reality.... evidently you are trying to allude to the idea that atheists have to be dishonest?

 

Then in the above quote you claim that you have evidence of the existence of god... your god i would assume...

 

So this is really an open challenge to disprove god and assert some kind of conspiracy to hide the truth from everyone?

[uncool]

@Uncool-

 

First trickery is the voilation of the very postulate of constancy of velocity of light; which Einstein introduced in his article; to arrive at the equation (which forms the first equation of the comment of DH) and second trickery is described above in my reply. The trickeries are thoroughly discussed in the article 'Experimental....'. Please read the article very carefully and then we could discuss at lenght.

I have. I have also read the original paper from Einstein; I assure you that you haven't found an error in it.

The simple answer is that Einstein defined x' as a constant in the reference frame k; since point x' is always at same distance from the origin of moving reference frame k so x' is not a variable with respect to time (tau) of the moving coordinate system k but he made x' as a variable and thereby made tau a function of x'.

x' is a variable. Specifically, Einstein is saying that there is a function x'(x, y, z, t), and it turns out that you can determine x, y, z, and t from x'(x, y, z, t), y, z, and t - so as tau is a function of x, y, z, and t, tau can be determined from x', y, z, and t.

 

@Uncool-

The second comment wasn't mine; it was a response to mine.

 

Now do you agree that the equation has been sufficiently demonstrated by D H's post? If not, then where in his post is the firs thing wrong?

=Uncool-

Edited June 10, 2012 by uncool

[Greg H.]

@Uncool-

 

In so far as your comment about connection between materialism & atheism is concerned. This issue is discussed in the connected & referred article 'Foundation of Theory of Everything:...' in the article 'Experimental.....' In brief the Theories of Relativity were put forward as the consequence of absence of luminiferuous aether; which in most modern physics had to reintroduced in the form of Dark Matter & Dark Energy to explain the motion of outer stars in the galaxies; but once the aether is accepted then the existence of other substances which do not have eletromagnetic properties and cannot be seen are the natural consequences. Thus besides matter there have to be other substances which cannot be seen wherein is contained the secret of existence of God. Big Bang Theory is the outcome of disturbing the absolute nature of space and if space is shown to be absolute then Big Bang Theory has no foundation whatsoever and that is exactly has been done through the articles mentioned in the Open Challenge and connected articles.

 

The second comment wasn't uncool's, it was mine, so I'll take up the argument here.

 

First, the luminiferuous aether was proposed as a light bearing medium to explain how light propagates from one place in the universe to another. It was proven to be an incorrect notion by several experiments, with the Michelson-Morely experiment being arguably the most famous, in which the fellows concluded that they could not reject the idea that there was no aether. Several other experiments, including some of different methodologies followed, and all came to the same conclusion.¹

 

The idea that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a rekindling of the aether idea seems kind of a stretch. The gravity that affects the motions of those outer stars has to come from somewhere - the fact that we cannot see what causes those gravitational effects does not mean we're conjuring up something for which we have no evidence. The laws of gravity and nature (as we understand them) require that something create those gravitational effects. Just because that matter is non-luminous does not mean we are now suddenly accepting the idea of the luminiferous aether again. The existence of dark matter, unlike the aether, has experimental evidence to back it up, most notably the work of Vera Rubin.²

 

As for your argument that just because we found dark matter, it necessarily follows that there must be other substances that cannot be seen is pure conjecture. No evidence for such substances exist, and if they did exist, we should expect to see them interacting with normal matter in some fashion, even if weakly(i.e. the gravitational effects of dark matter). The follow-along idea that this somehow proves the existence of God is nonsense bordering on absurdity.

 

----------

¹ - Luminiferous Aether @ Wikipedia

² - Greene, B. (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos. Vintage Books: New York. pp 294-296.

[swansont]

First trickery is the voilation of the very postulate of constancy of velocity of light; which Einstein introduced in his article; to arrive at the equation (which forms the first equation of the comment of DH) and second trickery is described above in my reply. The trickeries are thoroughly discussed in the article 'Experimental....'. Please read the article very carefully and then we could discuss at lenght.

 

The simple answer is that Einstein defined x' as a constant in the reference frame k; since point x' is always at same distance from the origin of moving reference frame k so x' is not a variable with respect to time (tau) of the moving coordinate system k but he made x' as a variable and thereby made tau a function of x'.

 

What's the connection between the two? Defining the variables this way does not violate the constancy of c.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

In answer to all the comments I would request that before making any comments the members of the forum should go through the articles very carefully and all the referred articles. If any one of you would analyse the comments of Uncool-, Greg H and Swansont after thoroughly reading the articles then you would realise that their comments are irrelevent and they have not bothered to read the articles especially 'Experimental.....'.One comment mentions that Michelson-Morley Experiment is the proof that aether does not exist. The theory put forward under the articles would have been baseless had conclusions drawn from Michelson- Morley Experiment not disproved. That too is done in the article 'Michelson-Morley Experiment; A Misconceived & Misinterpreted Experiment'. Had he gone through the article properly he would not have made such a comment. DH was informed about the plight of same objection made by one Jeremy Dunning-Davies but instead of reading the articles on www.jsjournal.net & viXra he & others persist with the same objection. They are supposed to have gone through the referred material before persisting with the same objection. Articles need not be rewritten on this forum. It is a great news from Greg H that Dark Matter has the experimental evidence which till date nobody knows and it should be news to the researchers who have been trying to have any experimental evidence of Dark Matter for last two decades. He should recommend Vera Rubin for an award not less than Nobel prize. Conjectures cannot be replied unless backed up by experimental & theoretical evidences.Swansont without reading the articles wherein that issue is explained in great detail makes irrelevent comment and expects me to reply. Greg H probably does not know that Dark Matter & Dark Enery has absolutely no experimental evidence till date and are simply theoretical concepts. Please read the articles thoroughly and in case some clarification is required which is not available in the articles & the referred articles then I am here to clarify. Uncool- was referred to an article 'Foundation of Theory of Everything:...' and without going through the article he again makes the absurd comment. Do not expect the reply to irrelevent comments without reading the articles & relevent material. Open Challenge is based on two articles but there are other three articles wherein the foundation of the aternative paradigm has been laid.

[swansont]

Articles need not be rewritten on this forum.

…

Swansont without reading the articles wherein that issue is explained in great detail makes irrelevent comment and expects me to reply.

 

I will refer you to the rules you agreed to follow when you joined the forum, and that the speculations form has additional rules. If you dismiss objections as irrelevant this discussion isn't going to last very long.

 

Your paper starts with a fundamental error, that there is some confusion about clock synchronization, which Einstein put first in his paper. If you follow that you will see that there is no "crucial confusion" at all; the light path is AO and the length BO has no meaning in the context of the discussion. Anything based on that is in error.

 

Also, your equations 2 and 3 are used in a different context than they are used in Einstein's paper.

 

At that point I stopped reading.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

I will refer you to the rules you agreed to follow when you joined the forum, and that the speculations form has additional rules. If you dismiss objections as irrelevant this discussion isn't going to last very long.

 

Your paper starts with a fundamental error, that there is some confusion about clock synchronization, which Einstein put first in his paper. If you follow that you will see that there is no "crucial confusion" at all; the light path is AO and the length BO has no meaning in the context of the discussion. Anything based on that is in error.

 

Also, your equations 2 and 3 are used in a different context than they are used in Einstein's paper.

 

At that point I stopped reading.

 

If you stop reading at the start of the article then only God can make you to follow & understand the article. Nowhere in the article there is mention of confusion about the clock synchronization and if you misrepresent the article without knowing the article then yes there is no point in any discussion with you. Yes! there is mention of confusion about the light path. probably you do not know what you are writting.

[Greg H.]

One comment mentions that Michelson-Morley Experiment is the proof that aether does not exist.

 

And had you bothered to read both my comment and the linked source, you wouldn't have made such a crucial mistake in interpretation. Michelson-Morley never claimed the aether did not exist. Their experiment resulted in a null hypothesis - they could not reject the idea the aether did not exist. To clarify, what they basically determined was that they did not have the evidence required to prove conclusively that such a material existed and was responsible for the expected predictions. Subsequent experiments also came to the same lack of proof, leading contemporary scientists to conclude the theory was incorrect.

 

If you stop reading at the start of the article then only God can make you to follow & understand the article. Nowhere in the article there is mention of confusion about the clock synchronization and if you misrepresent the article without knowing the article then yes there is no point in any discussion with you. Yes! there is mention of confusion about the light path. probably you do not know what you are writting.

You're gong to need to start ponying up some actual substantial discussions if you expect anyone to continue debating with you. Invoking God in every other post is not what I would call scientific evidence of anything, since you would first need to be able to prove that God exists (scientifically).

[D H]

At that point I stopped reading.

 

That was pretty much my first response, too. "Yet another anti-relativity crackpot. Been there, done that." There's nothing to be learned as every single one of those anti-relativity crackpots are wrong. There's very little to be gained in arguing with them as almost all of those anti-relativity crackpots are beyond intransigent.

 

After being challenged in post #5, I did take the time to find the first flaws in each of the two cited papers, and after quickly finding huge gaping holes in each, well, at that point I stopped reading.

[Mohammad Shafiq Khan]

And had you bothered to read both my comment and the linked source, you wouldn't have made such a crucial mistake in interpretation. Michelson-Morley never claimed the aether did not exist. Their experiment resulted in a null hypothesis - they could not reject the idea the aether did not exist. To clarify, what they basically determined was that they did not have the evidence required to prove conclusively that such a material existed and was responsible for the expected predictions. Subsequent experiments also came to the same lack of proof, leading contemporary scientists to conclude the theory was incorrect.

 

[/size]

 

You're gong to need to start ponying up some actual substantial discussions if you expect anyone to continue debating with you. Invoking God in every other post is not what I would call scientific evidence of anything, since you would first need to be able to prove that God exists (scientifically).

 

Read all the articles from first to last; when you understand all the articles then some fruitful discussion is possible. Without knowing & understanding the articles you expect me teach you physics on the forum.That is not my job.

[uncool]

Read all the articles from first to last; when you understand all the articles then some fruitful discussion is possible. Without knowing & understanding the articles you expect me teach you physics on the forum.That is not my job.

No, but your job is to explain exactly how what we are saying is wrong. Which you have yet to do. D H has explicitly derived the equation which you say has no origin. Either his derivation is correct, or you should be able to point out the first spot where it is incorrect.

=Uncool-

[Greg H.]

Read all the articles from first to last; when you understand all the articles then some fruitful discussion is possible. Without knowing & understanding the articles you expect me teach you physics on the forum.That is not my job.

 

As uncool said, DH has already pointed out that the articles themselves are pretty much bunk. Saying "read them again" isn't going to make them any less wrong. Your job, at this point, is to make a convincing argument why DH's refutations, and our subsequent arguments are incorrect (or fallacious, if that happens to be the case), not telling us to re-read what has already been demonstrated to be incorrect.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Mohammad,

Since you persist on ignoring the requests staff have made of you via PM and the requests members have made to you, I am closing this thread. You are not allowed to reopen this topic.

If you have any questions regarding this note, please use the report feature to alert your concerns to staff.