Debate of Light and Dark: A 100 Year Bet with NASA

ISBN-13: 9781537629759 / Angielski / Miękka / 2016 / 344 str.

Dr Yuxiang Wu

Opis

"Debate of Light and Dark" Description This is a popular science book written in easy language, high school students can understand. The book is thoroughly against contemporary cosmology. I spent three years to obtain my PhD from U.C. Berkeley engineering college. I also published some research papers and books. This book was written after my decade thinking, and should deserve to be read. The writing of this book is full of joy and bitterness. The happy side is, anyone who has carefully read the manuscript of the book agreed with the book. For example, former president of the China Science and Technology Publishing House and the China Popular Science Publishing House, Dr. Qing Su, wrote a five thousand word preface for the book after he read the manuscript; Mr. Jefferson, the editor of the English text of the book, is full of praise for this book. "My father is an astronomer and my sister is an astrophysicist at NASA. I can't wait to spring some of these ideas on them," he said. Adding that positive feedback from many friends, I believe the ideas in this book are worth to be considered and discussed. Bitterness is that the mainstream cosmos astronomical community has refused to accept such deviant that completely negate Einstein's theory of relativity and the Big Bang. There is no possibility that I may have a voice in the mainstream, not to mention the possibility of a normal scientific discussion about the ideas of disagreement with them. The research paper I sent, basically were turned down in the hands of the editors. I am deeply aware that contemporary cosmology and astronomy, under the guidance of Einstein's theory of relativity, in the smoke of the Big Bang, have been day after day deviating from the truth. I would particularly recommend to astronomers, cosmologists and related academics that it is the time to abandon the old cosmic point of view, and understand clearly what human can do, and what they can't. You either critique the ideas in this book, or carefully consider the merits of it, instead of turning a deaf ear to continue to squander taxpayers' hard-earned money, making bigger and bigger telescopes, report increasingly absurd distant cosmic myth stories. Over the past century, our understanding of the universe has been rooted in Einstein's theory of relativity. What if this picture is wrong? The book consists of eleven chapters organized into three parts. Part I of the book examined the special relativity by questioning Einstein's "On Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" that exposes numerous contradictions presented in Einstein's theories, as well as some experimental designs that expose these contradictions. The first three contradictions are related to the Lorentz (Einstein) transformation. Five errors were found in the process of establishing the concept of relativity. There are chapters that give comments on general relativity and related experimental design. The discussion about time and space, the definition of 4-dimensional object event world line, and its application in object existence law prove. Part II is about the Big Bang Theory Criticism. We used simple reasoning and logic to reveal the core of various complex issues and used simple mathematics to crack seemingly esoteric theory: Olbers' Paradox (why is the sky dark at night) is explained without any assumption, the Hidden Celestial Object is defined and compared to dark matter; the new theoretic explanation for redshift is presented, the doubtfulness of cosmic microwave background was discussed, and the immense picture of our view of universe was depicted. The third part discusses issues such as why Horgan declared the "End of Science," why mathematics is old, and how to rejuvenate. If you have a relative or friend who is a cosmologist or astrophysicist, please send this book to him and ask his opinion about the book. Thanks.

Zawartość książki może nie spełniać oczekiwań – reklamacje nie obejmują treści, która mogła nie być redakcyjnie ani merytorycznie opracowana.