User talk:Ferayebend

'ANSWER, TO PARTICULARLY, THE PERSON HIDING HIS NAME, AND CALLING HIMSELF FERAYEBEND'', by Prof. Tolga YARMAN, July 13th, 2009'''

Dear Editor:

I am sad and very much surprised to read the few "talks" that have come into play, based on the page Wikipedia had kindly designed about my biography and my work. Here is the one from Felixis (is this, a "name", I doubt really). He says

''- What did he do in order to have such a detailed biography on Wikipedia? There are lots of scientists who has published numerous articles. Also, there is no information about the experiment done by Dr. Kholmetskii in collaboration with Dr. Yarman. Also, this page contains all of his publications, conference papers and reports. If other professors would have put all of their cvs in Wikipedia that would be complete mess, and make nonsense. So I removed the publications and reports parts. Felixis (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC).''



Some people seem to be carried away so much to imagine that, I or my students, have started out this page. As you know, this is not true at all. In fact, I found it out, totally unexpectedly... I was flattered and happy, of course, when I crossed it... Chiefly, to convey as briefly and clearly as possible, the peculiarities of the approach, I have developed with my Colleagues, only then, I was indeed enthusiastic to add few lines to the text, thus already, so skillfully prepared by Wikipedia.

Felixis on the one hand says

''- This page contains all of his publications, conference papers and reports. If other professors would have put all of their cvs in Wikipedia that would be complete mess, and make nonsense. So I removed the publications and reports parts.'' But unfortunately on the other hand says

- Also, there is no information about the experiment done by Dr. Kholmetskii in collaboration with Dr. Yarman.

There was... But apparently he removed!.. On the other hand, what is wrong, if scientists works are posted, as much as the portal of concern, can afford?

Furthermore, on the contrary to what he claimed, only few recent articles of mine together with my colleagues, were cited in the page (and not all my publications, conference papers and reports). Amongst these, there were indeed a couple of conference reports, but originally reporting our controversial predictions. More importantly, we already had detected a serious error, in the processing of relativistic data reported by Kundig, in 1963, in Physical Review Letters (Kündig W, 1963 Phys. Rev., 129, 2371), which, according to us, all by itself, should be considered to put at stake the conception of the passed century. And we had published an article on that, in Physica Scripta, almost a year before we have carried our own experiments. Here is the link to it: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/77/3/035302/...

Thus, already at our start point, we were confident that, most likely we would obtain experimental results, in full accordance, with what we had predicted.

The results of our experiments were on the other hand, immediately reported to the arXiv (arXiv:0812.4507, December 2008), and are now published, again, in Physica Scripta http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1402-4896/79/6/065007. Thus, Felixis' statement that "there is no information about the experiment done by Dr. Kholmetskii in collaboration with Dr. Yarman", does not reflect the truth.

It is furthermore very sad that the person hiding his name and calling himself Ferayebend, following his visit to the site, and not finding any references related to our work (because, as I said, they had been removed), were carried out by such a prejudice, furthermore rancour, and even calumny, that, we announced our results, based on practically nothing. This person (Ferayebed) goes on saying

- As noted in the former edits, the renowned status of Tolga Yarman is not based on fact.

This is incorrect. But, Ferayebend continues on saying

- The only response I could find to his theories in the press other than his Yarman's collaborators voice strong concerns of unethical publicity behavior.

This is so absurdly slanderous. Via such criticism, one would claim that publishing an article, a thought, a result, writing a book, sharing scientific findings with the public through a press conference, is an "unethical publicity behavior". This person could have written to me or my collaborators, to ask, information about our work, if he could not find anything related to it, in his near vicinity. Our e-mails, are everywhere. They are particularly on our articles.

Ferayebend continues on saying

''- I have added this criticisms into the article however I believe that mention of such a disregarded press conference by the scientific community is undue weight in the article, and should be taken out completely. The lack of international interest on Yarman further shows that this biography article is more appropriate for Turkish Wikipedia and not the English version. Ferayebend (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC).''

What is this? Who is he? He does not even have the courage of revealing himself. Who does manipulate him? We talk about experimental factualities (and even we may not have, were we proposing merely a novel theory, this would have been quite fine, but we do present sımultaneously experimental results), and this person, considers him, as a universal arbiter, having no respect to other stand points, no respect to hearing, no respect to defense, no respect to trial, no respect to appeal, to establish about our work, and more audaciously, about our personalities, such an absolute outrageous verdict.

Moreover, I was not even alone (I could of course be, but I was not), when we conveyed our results to the public. Why then, according to him, I self publicize, and not the others?.. To me, clearly, Ferayebend’s behavior is just not normal. He is so much carried away with malice that, finally while linking his behavior to his earlier paraphernalia, he could not avoid, but makes the channel leading to his headquarter caught, red-handed.

There are thousands of statements processed by Google, on our work, and he thinks, his ill and only judgment, must take place alone, in the page, Wikipedia kindly offered to our work...

I am afraid, his behavior is not even honest, for while he cites a criticism, he seems to forget about our replies to it, and more importantly, he does not even refer to our response to his own criticisim (http://marxistsinspace.blogspot.com/2009/05/intoduction-to-tolga-yarman.html). He behaves as if, there is no such reply.

Wikipedia, should not allow such a misconduct...

In case that link’s content is lost, I will be happy to provide the copy I have of it. It may in effect not stay there for long!.. It is sad that, a singular pathological behavior, such as that of Ferayebend, can spoil, the flattering text, Wikipedia team originally prepared, which unfortunately now is mostly plucked. The family feelings are gone, the tonalities are gone, the original beauty is gone, and basically the essence of the work we achieved is gone.

The reply I have sent to Feraybend's criticism (http://marxistsinspace.blogspot.com/2009/05/intoduction-to-tolga-yarman.html), I hope, will allow Wikipedia team to judge things better.

Let me state one last thing, as now the professor of many dozens of full professors, with regards to Ferayebend, who presents himself as an astrophysicist. Let him detach himself at once, from his malevolent manipulator (and I am afraid I can guess who he is), and considers seriously our work. He may very well pin down that we are mistaking. This would not constitute any problem for us, scientists… We extend our gratitude, to anyone showing righteously that we are mistaking... But if Ferayebend cannot say anything concrete against our work, and results, then I should like to invite him, and people like him, no matter how biased they may be at the beginning, to contribute to the line of research we have so painfully drawn, over the years.



Here is finally, the last “talk” by Miguel Andrade: ''- I removed the text describing the theories of Dr. Yarman due to multiple reasons. Please, anybody put back if you feel like, but in my opinion it needs substantiation by references and rewriting. Miguel Andrade (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC).''

Thanks to Miguel. But here again, unfortunately, the references I had provided were removed. The site is, as I detailed was deliberately and pathologically attacked.

I can understand envy. I can understand jealousy. I can understand hard feelings. I can understand regret, for what we have done could have been done by many, throughout the passed very many decades … But pathology should be avoided.

Anyway, this is to say, Miguel, had apparently not even seen the page as originally written by Wikipedia.



I would like to be accorded by Wikipedia, the possibility of adding references to our work, that has appeared in respected journals, and substantiate the text with regards to the explanation of our work.

But first of all, I would like to ask Wikipedia team, to please reorganize this page, considering first the very original lovely text, they have so kindly offered, and the few additions and citations I made to it, and to protect it from, shameful, unscientific attacks.

Note please that even sentences related to my beloved parents, family, and son, and furthermore now, the names of my collaborators, had been utterly chopped.



I thank anyway, the Wikipedia team, with all my heart, for having considered my biography and work, seriously.

Tolga Yarman, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, 1972, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor, T.C. Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey

'''ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE THE “UNKNOWN GUEST”, FERAYE!.. BUT WE ARE FOND OF FERAYE!..''' by Prof. T. Yarman, July the 21st, 2009

Dear Editor:

On the one hand, I am pleased to see that people are somewhat interested, in the page, Wikipedia has launched on my biography, and the work I have developed with my Colleagues, chiefly Prof. Metin Arik and Prof. Alexander Kholmetskii... On the other hand, and this is of course natural, we have unidentified persons, flying therein, but some of them, for what purpose, who really knows... One of them is Ferayebend. Let me call him, in short, Feraye, although “Feraye” is a female name, in Turkish. I hope he, or she will not mind. Perhaps he is a lady, but we have so far no way to figure it out... I will continue to call Feraye, "he"...

This time, he is being sweet on the one side, however on the other side, he cannot refrain himself but reinsert on the page, his central interpretation about the press conference we held, to share our enthusiastic results, with the public, i.e. he reintroduces the sentence "His is press conference was labeled as a publicity stunt and he was accused of self-publicizing". The reference he provides, herein, remains the only reference in the page. It is furthermore in Turkish.

Thus, with regards to myself, he says "His press conference was labeled… and he was accused", as if there is a universal verdict around.

And who labeled it?

“It”!

Who accused me?

“It”!

And, this “it”, turns out to be, just a single person!

Now, Feraye, may or may not know that (as I have mentioned, in my previous writing), we have responded to this writing. Here is my mail of December 26th, 2008.

Tolga Yarman  kimehabermerkezi@sol.org.tr, sol@sol.org.tr

tarih26 Aralık 2008 11:13 konuCemsinan Deliduman gönderengmail.com

Degerli Ilgili: ''Kosenizde su haber yer aliyor... http://haber.sol.org.tr/mansetler/mansetalt/7712.html...'' ''Bu gelismeyi uzuntuyle karsiladigimizi, saklamayacagim... Ulkemiz'in bir goz bebegi, Degerli Prof. Metin Arik da, ben be, burada konustugu isaret edilen ogretim uyesinin (ayrica her halde tanimak durumunda bulundugu) buyukleriyiz... O acidan her sey bir tarafa boylesi ulurota ve sirazesi bozuk bir uslubu, hangi pisme evresinde olursa olsun, bir bilim adamina yakistiramayiz... Bu yaziya yanit vermeden once, burada soylenenlerin, gercekten, sizin yaptiginiz haberin icerigi bulunup bulunmadigini ve sahiden bu insanin agzindan cikan sozler olup olmadigini tahkik etme, ihtiyaci duyuyorum... Burada yazilanlar dogru mudur ve adi Cemsinan Deliduman olan bir ogretim uyesine mi aittir?.. Bilgi rica ediyorum... Sevgiyle...'' T.Y. The translation of it, is briefly this. "Both Prof. Metin Arik, a pride of our country, and I, are seemingly elders of the person in question, and we are sorry to hear a scientist talking with such an unbalanced manner, and before we react, we wanted to make sure whether, what we have read here, is indeed meant, and whether indeed they belong to the person named Cemsinan Deliduman."

We had no answer to this mail!

I wrote again in January 18th, 2009. Here is my second mail.

Tolga Yarman  kimehabermerkezi@sol.org.tr, sol@sol.org.tr

tarih18 Ocak 2009 11:52 konuRe: Cemsinan Deliduman gönderengmail.com

Degerli Ilgili: ''Bir sure once size asagidaki iletiyi yollamistim... Yanit alamadik. Bu durumda sunlari kaydetmek ihtiyacindayim. Tarafsiz yayincligin bir ilkesi, uluorta tezvir degildir. Bir konuyla ilgili cesitli gorusler elbette alinir ve yayinlanir. Ancak hakkinda haber yaptiginiz oznelere donup, kendileriyle ilgili soylenenleri aktararak, onlarin goruslerini yansitma hassasiyeti gosterilmiyorsa, yayincilik o zaman, uluorta tezvir, isnat, iftira, tasni, gibi ceza hukukumuzda yer verilmis yaptirimlar kapsamina girer. Her hal-u karda, yansizliktan sapilmis olur. Hakkaniyetle bagdasmaz bir duruma sebebiyet verilir. Boylesi bir cerceveyi bir defa size yakistirmayiz.'' ''Sozlerini haber yaptiginiz ogretim uyesine gelince... Keske yanilsam, ama uc haftadan fazla zaman gecti, aradan; sesi sedasi cikmiyorsa, atip tutma kabiliyeti kadar, yuregi yokmus, demektir... Boyleleri kim olursa olsun, onlar ve akil danelerinin agizlarina, birileri cikar, biber doker... Solculuk zor istir... Once ise, "erdem" gerektirir... Bir daha olmasin... Sevgiyle kucakliyorum...'' T.Y.

Here is a brief English translation of it. "We wrote to you a little while ago. We had no answer. ‘Objective publishing’, is not ‘downgrading people, at your wish’. If you do not show the sensitivity of reflecting the views of people, you bring up, with no care at all, then you would be trapped in acts such as rancour, calumny, insult, and so forth, which are all subjects enumerated by the penal law. In any case you would give up ‘objectivity’, thus fairness... As to the faculty member whose words, you made news about us, I whish I am wrong, but if he does not respond to us in a period of three weeks, then I am afraid, he does not have the guts, as much as his capability of ‘random fire’. Make sure that this will not happen again." We did not have an answer, to this mail, either...

Whereas Feraye, considers the totally ill news in question, that took place on a web site, so vital that, he could cut off, all of the references in the page, Wikipedia kindly offered to my biography, and our work, but keeps that one, there, alone.

This is not admissible, I firmly believe, and I removed again the sentence "His press conference was labeled as a publicity stunt and he was accused of self-publicizing", which is based only, I think, on hard feelings, and I really do not understand why Feraye develops such hard feelings. The page should not anyway be the place of such feelings.

If Feraye brings back the same reference, let him make sure that, at least this time, he refers to our answers, next to it… All he has to do, is to paste, the link of this page, next to his recontribution ... I will do it anyway for him, if I will have to... At any rate, I am glad, he accorded to us the opportunity to bring up the so far unpublished replies we sent with regards to his favorite reference!..

Feraye continues to write in his blog (http://marxistsinspace.blogspot.com/2009/05/intoduction-to-tolga-yarman.html), about my work, and I am glad to see that, people are interested in it. But from what I read, I sense, Feraye did not unfortunately understand, much about it.

It may be natural that we came from different schools. He may not agree with a lot of thoughts of mine. But I feel the same. When I read his criticism, as far as my concrete experience as a nuclear scientist, is concerned, chiefly about the mass and energy equivalence of the STR, I find very much, what he brings up, in a deep need of academic calibration. If I were him, I would try first of all, to understand the essence of a new approach, with no bias. He shows (as far as I see), he cannot do that! He picks here and there, he inserts links to his drafted mumblings about our work, as if his hasty chat texts behind, are too much a serious stuff, he childishly, thinks he disproves us, but he leaves totally out, the essential.

And what is the essential?

It is that (to us), the start point of the GTR constitutes a violation of the relativistic law of energy conservation. More specifically the footnote on page 60, of the book The Meaning of Relativity, by Einstein, where the Grand Master, reduces the effect of rotation, to the mere effect of displacement, and overlooks the effect of straight acceleration, to our understanding, unfortunately badly violates the law of relativistic energy conservation. This is one thing. At the same time, we had the privilege and pleasure to exercise my idea that, a rest mass must get decreased as much as the binding energy it delineates in the given (attracting) force field, and not just gravitation field, but any field, the object in consideration interacts with. (The rest mass would get increased if the force field is a repulsive one.) Who will decide, who comes closer to the reality, the GTR or our approach?

Not Feraye or any monks of the science church, for sure!..

Experiment will decide, and as I conveyed previously, I am afraid, the experimental results back us up, and not the GTR.

So please Feraye, or anyone else, stop arguing none sense, or sense, if you think you are making sense, and try to study our experimental results (A. L. Kholmetskii, T. Yarman, O. V. Missevitch, B. I Rogozev, A Mössbauer Experiment in a Rotating System on the Second-Order Doppler Shift: Confirmation of the Corrected Result by Kündig, Physica Scripta, 79, Number 6, 2009, along with A. L. Kholmetskii, T. Yarman, O. V. Missevitch, Kündig's Experiment on the Transverse Doppler Shift Re-analyzed, Physica Scripta, 78, 2008), and equally importantly, our predictions regarding  the results we have harvested, and this, long before they were obtained (T. Yarman, V.B. Rozanov, M. Arik, The Incorrectness of the Principle of Equivalence and the Correct Principle of Equivalence,  Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory Conference, Moscow, 2-5 July 2007 / Edited by M.C. Duffy,  V.O. Gladyshev, A.N. Morozov, P. Rowlands). If you have any difficulty to reach these articles, please write to any of us, instead of complaining. Here is again my e-mail address: tolgayarman@gmail.com.

Anyway, we cannot keep on discussing like this.

If Feraye or anyone willing to behave the way he does, cares so much to write, and I will be happy to read him, then let him send papers about his views against our work to journals, where our work was published, i.e. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Foundations of Physics Letters, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, Optics and Spectroscopy, Physica Scripta, European Journal of Physics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics (and they are not at all out of reach, on the contrary to what Feraye reclaims, and these are “respectable” journals, where the review of an article takes months, and the publication is not achieved before a year after submission), we will be glad to try to answer. In the mean time Feraye, please be calm, because in a vey short while we will submit an article about our results to Nature, as you requested :))...

Of course, like most scientists, we have also written many conference papers. What is wrong with that? All the more that many of them are well, peer-reviewed.

Recall again that, one of our major predictions took place in the transactions of such a conference (T. Yarman, V.B. Rozanov, M. Arik, The Incorrectness of the Principle of Equivalence and the Correct Principle of Equivalence, Physical Interpretation of Relativity Theory – PIRT - Conference, Moscow, 2-5 July 2007 / Edited by M.C. Duffy,  V.O. Gladyshev, A.N. Morozov, P. Rowlands).

Nothing is of course, wrong, if this paper appeared here (and many thanks to the Organizers of the PIRT Conference), while it is a shame that, practically no main stream journal would publish such unusual predictions. Isn’t it so, Feraye?

What is being wrong, though, is to advertise that, and this, as if we did not do anything else, publishing in conference transactions, is a big scientific sin, and we find, this is quite unfair.

The way it stands now, Feraye struggles, for what, I sincerely do not understand. I personally am unable to profit from his criticism.

Is he sincere? I sincerely do not have that feeling either.

He claims, Wikipedia team did not take part in the endeavor of preparing the page about my biography and our work? But he does not know anything about this… Who did prepare the page? He does not have a concrete answer, but he still has an answer: People who love me :))… Thanks God there are very many of such beautiful people. But who are specifically those who prepared the page? He does not know!.. I do not know!.. But, the page was prepared!

Who did it?

“It”!..

I must thence have next to few mefistos around, many unseen, invisible, but hard working angels :))…

Feraye this time rolled over the goose, so that the poor thing, is not burnt :))… (This is a Turkish saying!..)

Nevertheless he claims, the public interest in our work does not extend beyond the news of our press release and even worse the negative criticisms of it. These criticisms are not simply voiced by him, he says, but by Dr. Deliduman. I have stated above, how I responded to this latter person’s criticism. But this is not what I will be at again, here; Feraye has indeed an interesting way of presenting things. So the criticisms are not simply voiced by Feraye, but by that Doctor as well, as he says.

And who else :)) …

According to Feraye

He+He+He, …, this serie going to infinity + (occasionnaly) someone else (perhaps mostly Feraye, himself) = a huge, impressive crowd, for Feraye!..

What a derivation!..

Joking aside, Feraye claims, people do not show any interest in our work. He may be right… Though, only the history will judge about it…

Incidentally, he does not most likely, know that my article published in Foundations of Physics Letters (December 2006), remained for months the most viewed article, of this journal, after which the "page of most viewed articles" of the journal was removed.

I reacted, for I felt the page was removed because people were so much interested in reading my paper. The Publisher was kind enough to reconcile me. The page was according to him, under restoration. A week or so afterwards, the page was turned on again, and my article once again, became the most viewed article of the journal. Though a short while after this happened, the page of the most viewed article, was again removed. I will not comment on it. Your guess is as good as mine...

As I shared previously, ONERA / The French NASA, many thanks to her Brave General Research Director, Prof. Christian Marchal, has shown a great interest to my results, and this already before Year 2000. It is Professor Marchal who encouraged me so intensely, to conceive experiments based on which the discrepancy between the GTR, and our approach, can be detected. We finally did. We have even achieved the experiments.

Prof. Xavier Oudet, the Editor of Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, wrote to me by the end of 2003 that, my paper, Feraye keeps on picking (and I like this), locked the Board of this journal for an entire year, after which they reached their decision about this paper, which can be read from http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-293/aflb293m137.htm. The referee report arrived right after, on the December the 31st, 2003, as a real gift of the new year. The history will decide about its importance. Here it is.

<<< A propos de « the general equation of motion via the special theory of relativity and quantum mechanics ».

Par Tolga Yarman N° 137

''L’auteur s’appuie sur la parfaite harmonie (« perfect harmony between an even non-relativitic quantum mechanichal description and special theory of relativity ») entre la relativité restreinte et la MQ non-relativiste pour implémenter une métrique « Lorentz invariante » (chapitre 3). Je pense aussi que la cinématique einsteinienne est fondée sur une conception «Lorentz invariante» quantique des unités de temps ou d’espace, contrairement à la cinématique relativiste de Poincaré (où il n’y a pas de temps propre, de masse propre…). L’approche de l’auteur est cependant, quant à elle, basée sur la dynamique et consiste à remettre en question (chapitre 1) la notion de masse propre (ou masse au repos, « many scientists firmly think that there is the proper mass (rest mass) and the relativistic mass and that the proper mass is and invariant which is a characteristic of matter, and that is all. Generally speaking, that is unacceptable » )''

La correction apportée par l’auteur à la conception einsteinienne de masse propre est la suivante : « Thus as we shall see based on special theory of relativity, the rest mass of an object in a gravitational field should decrease as much as its binding energy in the field »

L’auteur appuie tout d’abord sa conception sur un point de vue microscopique, en l’occurrence sur l’électron donc la masse propre dépendrait de l’énergie de liaison dans l’atome d’hydrogène (the mass deficiency in question is exactly equal to the binding energy of the proton and the electron, 13,6 ev, based on the fundamental relationship »)

L’auteur précise toutefois la relation fondamentale au niveau macroscopique et gravitationnel « gravitationnel binding energy », chapitre 2, 4 et 5).

« Postulate: the rest mass of an object bound to a celestial body, amouts less that it rest mass measured in empty space, and this as much as its binding energy vis-à-vis the gravitational field of concern »

De façon très ingénieuse l’auteur montre qu’avec la loi suivante de variation de la masse propre

m(r)= m0exp(-alpha) où alpha=GM/(rc**2) ,

''on retrouve l’expression du potentiel donné par la relativité générale (et donc aussi ses prévisions concernant la déflection de la lumière et le périhélie de Mercure). A mon avis ce seul résultat (chapitre 4 et 5), basé sur la relativité restreinte (RR), vaut déjà une publication.''

''Mais je ne suis pas sûr qu’il ne faudrait pas alors immédiatement appliquer la relation fondamentale établie par l’auteur pour un « macroscopic object » au « microscopic object » qui est au coeur de la relativité restreinte. En effet d’après l’auteur la même notion de « mass deficiency » devrait affecter aussi bien la masse propre de l’électron (13,6ev ! !) que celle d’un astre. En effet si la RG peut se réfugier derrière l’idée que la constante G est négligeable au niveau des particules, il me semble plus difficile de trouver un tel lieu de refuge dans la théorie de l’auteur. On n’y est pas encore mais l’orientation choisie l’auteur pour la recherche d’une synthèse (gravitation relativiste-quantique) me semble être la bonne ! Je pense qu’il faudrait aussi établir une relation exponentielle semblable au niveau (cinématique) du temps propre.''

''J’avoue n’avoir pas bien compris la problématique (chapitre 6) sur la forme scalaire et vectorielle de la loi de Newton car il me semble que la relativité restreinte introduit un facteur différent gamma**2 ou gamma**3 suivant que l’on considère un mouvement longitudinal ou transversal. Il me semble donc que la RR (voir Poincaré) remet fondamentalement en question le caractère trivectoriel de la loi de Newton (F=ma) en ce sens que la force n’a plus nécessairement la même direction que l’accélération.''

''J’avoue ne pas avoir compris non plus pourquoi le principe d’équivalence était remis en question. Dans le théorème 4 de sa conclusion l’auteur utilise d’ailleurs deux expressions identiques pour définir la masse inerte et la masse gravitationnelle. (Note by TY: My Dear Reviewer, most likely could not see, the faint "/" there was, in the expression of the inertial mass.)''

''Quoi qu’il en soit, l’article mérite d’ être publié car il met notamment en évidence le rôle essentiel d’une remise en perspective de la relativité restreinte s’il on veut espérer sortir de l’impasse dans laquelle la physique théorique s’est aujourd’hui enfermée. >>>''

It says briefly the following… "The author, has prodigiously shown that through the law for the rest mass variation, m(r)= m0exp(-alpha) with alpha=GM/(rc**2), one can land at the potential given by the GTR (and consequently, the end results of this theory, with regards to deflection of light, and perihelion of Mercury)... In any case this article deserves to be published, for it particularly puts in evidence the essential role of a rebringing in perspective, of the special theory of relativity, if one hopes to get out of the dead end, the theoretical physics is actually imprisoned in."



Dear Feraye, do not worry. Here are people from Wikipedia… They watch us… And I am sure they will decide accordingly… I am in any case grateful to them, for a lovely page they have offered to my biography, and our work, no matter how hard it was attacked… Fruitful tree is, of course, stoned… (This too is a Turkish saying.) My angels though will restore everything :))...



All the best Dear Editor... Cordially...

Tolga Yarman, Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering, 1972, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor, T.C. Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.170.182 (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Prof Yarman is not the only person at whom Ferayebend pushed slander. He keeps actively slandering on several internet platforms, such as Eksisozluk (a Turkish forum). His real name is "Baybars Külebi" Comments about him on Eksisozluk (in Turkish), who is known with his "misleading" comments. He wrote a "Ph.D" title after his name although he was not awarded with such a title from any institution. Once this fact has been revealed on Eksisozluk, he made the foregoing webpage inaccessible. However, the evidence is cached on Google: Evidence of the "misleading" behavior conducted by Baybars Külebi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.178.35.40 (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is extremely funny that an old webpage of Baybars Külebi that has a section called "rants" with a title "‘Hello Mr. Physicist, Merry Fucking Christmas’: Research in God, Research in Divinity and South Parkiesque Contrasts Thereof" and a signature of Mert Karabıyıkoğlu at the end, can be taken as evidence as foulplay. It is a fictional short essay written by Mert Karabıyıkoğlu as stated.
 * Nevertheless it is rather unfortunate and even worse completely false that the issues leading to the deletion Yarman's article would be referred as "slander." Yarman is entitled to have his opinions, however inclusion of third parties are not only unnecessary, it shows clear intent of malice.
 * Furthermore I find it rather ironic to accuse someone of slander, during the actual act of slander. Ferayebend (talk)