Relativity and Cosmology


Confusion in Cosmology and Gravitation

Authors: Christian Corda, Reza Katebi, Nathan O. Schmidt

In a series of papers, Santilli and collaborators released various strong statements against the general theory of relativity (GTR) and the standard ΛCDM model of cosmology. In this paper we show that such claims are due to fundamental misunderstandings of very basic concepts of gravitation and cosmology. In other words, we show that Santilli and collaborators demonstrated nothing. In particular, they demonstrated neither that the GTR is wrong, nor that the Universe is not expanding. We also show that the so-called iso-gravitation theory (IGT) of Santilli is in macroscopic contrast with geodesic motion and, in turn, with the Equivalence Principle (EP) and must therefore be ultimately rejected. Finally, we show that, although the so called iso-redshift could represent an interesting alternative (similar to the tired light theory historically proposed by Zwicky) to the Universe expansion from a qualitative point of view, it must be rejected from a quantitative point of view because the effect of iso-redshift is 10^{-6} smaller than the effect requested to achieve the cosmological redshift.

Comments: 39 Pages. Paper dedicated to the 80th birthday of Mr. Ruggero M. Santilli, hoping that this will permit Mr. Santilli to understand how GTR and ΛCDM cosmology really work and, in turn, will permit him to withdraw his very wrong claims in gravitation and cosmology

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2015-06-29 02:50:52
[v2] 2015-10-08 04:49:38

Unique-IP document downloads: 490 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus