Does the American Mathematical Society
deliberately suppress scientific facts ?


Stephen J. Crothers

~ home  ~   papers  ~   challenge  ~   PhD  ~   ICTP fraud  ~   Ric = 0   ~   Letters from a Black Hole  ~
~  Something about Sky & Telescope  ~   Astronomers admit: No Black Holes Found  ~ Something about Tom Bridgman  ~   
~   Black Holes and Big Bangs Contradictory  ~   

The Death of Julieka Dhu in Police Custody

Does the American Mathematical Society commit scientific fraud by deliberately suppressing scientific facts and refusing to publish legitimate criticisms of papers it has published ? Here are some things to consider in relation to this question.

On May 5, 2009 the Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical Society published this paper:

Linear waves in the Kerr geometry: A mathematical voyage to black hole physics
Felix Finster; Niky Kamran; Joel Smoller; Shing-Tung Yau

This paper contains fundamental errors in both mathematics and physics. I therefore prepared this detailed paper in which I explain those errors, and submitted it to the AMS on 23 June 2009. I received this email, on 24 June, from an editor for the AMS:

Dear author,

It appears that your paper has been submitted to the wrong journal.
JAMS publishes original research articles.
Your paper appears to be a review article and should be submitted elsewhere.

Best wishes, Weinan

On 24 June I replied as follows:

Dear Sir,

I think you have misunderstood my paper. I cite many sources, and quote them, but the fundamental mathematical arguments contained therein are original research. I note that the paper by Finster et. al. deals with related issues, and was published by the AMS. My paper demonstrates that the conclusions in the Finster paper are invalid, and various of their mathematical arguments misconceived, as typical of the broader community of writers on these matters. I seek to publish in the same journal as Finster et. al. The paper is attached again for your consideration.

Yours faithfully,
Stephen J. Crothers.

I got this back on 24 June:

There are many AMS journals. Your paper is not suited for Journal of AMS.
If you wish, you can send it to other AMS journals.
The paper of Finster was for Bulletin of AMS.
You may try that journal if you wish.

Best wishes, Weinan

So I sent my paper directly to the Bulletin. I got this reply from the Chief Editor of the Bulletin, Susan Friedlander, also on 24 June 2009:

Dear Dr Crothers

Thank you for your submission to the AMS Bulletin. However your article is not suitable for publication in this journal. BAMS publishes only a very small number of articles and we look for articles that appeal to a wide audience. You may wish to submit your article to a more specialised journal. This is important in the case of your article because it appears to be controversial in its claims.

best wishes
Susan Friedlander
Chief Editor

In response to this unscientific rubbish I sent this email to Friedlander, on 25 June, copied to editor Weinan E:

Dear Madam,

Please explain why my paper is "not suitable for publication" in your journal, bearing in mind that you have recently published the paper by Finster et. al. which discusses the very same matters in relation to Kerr geometry. Are you really rejecting my paper simply because it is "controversial in its claims" ? You have not mentioned any alleged technical errors in it. My paper demonstrates that the Finster et. al. paper contains gross errors. Do you even dispute that the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution, as "controversial", despite the irrefutable evidence - Schwarzschild's own paper!

Yours faithfully,
Stephen J. Crothers.

There has been no response from the AMS to my request for explanation. Here is all the original correspondence.

Now it is odd that the Finster et. al. paper apparently appeals to a "wide audience", whereas my paper, dealing directly with related fundamental issues in General Relativity, and the errors in the paper by Finster et. al., is evidently not one that would appeal to the very same audience. That is surely nonsense.

I note also that my paper was not rejected for any alleged technical reasons, but for being, well, "controversial in its claims". Evidently the AMS will not publish anything "controversial" nor any legitimate criticism of papers it has published ! In my book that is not only scientific dishonesty, but also scientific fraud.

Stephen J. Crothers

Home Page

Page established: 30th June 2009

Last update: 29th December 2014

[ top ]