Home

Masterpieces of Charlatanism

This page gives up to date information about attempts to oppose dissemination of new ideas relating Physics and Geometry presented in
S. Shahverdiyev's works.

Surprising and unexpected things happened after S. Shahverdiyev tried to publish his works presented in three papers.

[1] General Geometry and Geometry of Electromagnetism
[2] Unification of Electromagnetism and Gravitation in the Framework of General geometry
[3] On Special Cases of General Geometry

Editors and referees of scientific journals begin to sabotage these papers by writing irrelevant reports, sometimes even ridiculous. Their attempts to sabotage these papers can be considered as charlatanism, because their statements are irrelevant to the contents of the submitted papers and sometimes are scientifically wrong and charlatanism means a discipline which states expertise that it does not have. We present names of those scientists with brief summary of their statements. For details a reader can read full correspondence.

M. Modugno (Editor to Journal of Geometry and Physics)
Supports/states that the paper [1] considers unification of electromagnetism and gravitation (absolutely irrelevant to [1] statement). Makes general statement that better mathematical language can be used, without specifying it. Makes astonishing statement that the paper is not suitable for publication in JGP.see full correspondence

J.Marsden (Editor to Journal of Mathematical Physics)
Supports/states that the paper [1] considers unification of electromagnetism and gravitation (absolutely irrelevant to [1] statement). States that the results of the paper are well known, without specifying any papers where those results could be published earlier. Fails to provide answers to these questions in his reply to the authors comments. Instead, argues that chosen for new geometry name "General Geometry" is not appropriate for this case and decides not to publish the paper because the detailed derivation of curvature is not provided. Leaves unanswered author's willing to provide the detailed derivation of curvature.see full correspondence

R. Price (Editor to Physical Review Letters)
States that General Geometry formulated in [1] is not a geometry at all because it depends on particle velocity (absolutely wrong statement). A consequence of this statement is that Riemannian geometry is not a geometry at all, because it also depends on particle velocity. In contrary to the editors statement the most simplest special case of "general geometry" does not depend on velocity at all.see full correspondence

G. Gibbons(Editor to Communications in Mathematical Physics)
States that Commun. Math. Phys. publishes papers only with genuine mathematical new material (apparently wrong statement) and considers discovered new geometries in [1] and [2] as not a genuine mathematical new material. see full correspondence

P. R. Holland (Editor to Physics Letters A)
States that paper [2] does not satisfy the journals criterion of urgency (no criterion of urgency is available from PLA's website). However, failes to explain why the paper does not satisfy it and refuses to specify the criterion. see full correspondence

V. Rubakov (Editor to International Journal of Modern Physics A)
Supports/states that linear displacement in geometry is nonsense (in contrary to the fact that dx is used everywhere in mathematics). Supports/states that General Relativity also predicts that electromagnetic field is a source for gravitational one (absolutely irrelevant to General Relativity statement). Leaves unanswered the author's request for 5 (five) months, although checks his e-mail frequently. As soon as all objections of a referee are overcomed by the author's comments, sends the paper to another referee.see full correspondence

H. Nicolai (Former Editor in Chief to Classical and Quantum Gravity)
Violates the journal's referring rules by himself, sending the submitted paper ([2]) to only one referee (supposedly himself) instead of to two independent referees. Supports/states that General Relativity also predicts that electromagnetic field is a source for gravitational one (absolutely irrelevant to General Relativity statement). Refuses to provide answers to the author's comments.see full correspondence

E. Corrigan (Former Honorary Editor to Journal of Physics A)
Clearly demonstrates ignorance of definition of geometry. Refers to paper with physically and mathematically wrong results. Refers to expression that is not in the submitted paper. see full correspondence

A. Vandermerwe (Editor to Foundation of Physics)
A. Vandermerwe sends the same report as a reply to the author's comments. States that he has confidential report which is not for the favor for publication the paper. see full correspondence

Editorial Board of Letters in Mathematical Physics
Editorial Board of Letters in Mathematical physics uses lie, exaggeration and arrogance in referring paper [3]. see full correspondence


Who am I?


ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Copyright © 2004

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1