Reply to comment

If you want to use some software to disprove Einstein then it will almost certainly need to be free and open source, so anyone can delve into the code to double and triple check the code to make sure it is doing what you claim it is (or else it would have to be so easy for anyone to replicate, from your description of what it does, that any reasonable implementation will reproduce what your version does).

This is necessary because one requirement of science is reproducibility!

So, other than some entertainment value, I'm hard pressed to see how you can fulfill the requirements of science, especially if you are trying to challenge a well established theory (regardless of authorship), and "make [a] profit". (I know, it tends to keep most of us scientists on the poor side.)

Now, it is good that you have expressed your "challenge" as "If it is right then Einstein is wrong." Of course I hope you recognize that the burden is on you to show whether the "software with real images" is "right". In science, the crux of any test of "right" is determined by comparison with actual experiments and/or observations of nature. No other test is meaningful—nature is the ultimate arbiter.

I certainly don't know what the nature of you software is, or what you mean by "real" images, nor do I know anything about this paper you say had what you felt was a key point "against" Einstein removed is about. I really don't even know, from what you've said, whether the two are very closely related (though I would guess that they may well be).

If you are trying to suggest that one or more of Einstein's theories suggests some unbelievable result, then the issue may simply boil down to opinion on what is "believable". If you are trying to suggest that one or more of Einstein's theories predicts something that conflicts with observations, then that's not a bad start, though you'll have to be prepared to have others show how additional considerations make a sufficient difference as to bring Einstein's predictions in line with observations. (His theories have withstood so many such challenges that it is difficult to believe that if this conflict were the case that this would not already be widely noised about.)

On the other hand, if you are trying to suggest some alternate theory, you have much more work to do. As I've said, any alternative theory must first show that it matches all previous experiments and observations. Fortunately, this is not quite as difficult as it may at first appear, so long as there are viable theories already in existence that do match such: This requirement then reduces to showing that in an appropriate limit (one appropriate for the regime for which such observations/experiments have been carried out), the new theory reduces to the alternate (this is how Special and General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics/Field-Theory fulfilled this requirement).

Then you graduate to showing how the new theory predicts testable phenomena that differ from the former theory/theories. (You may even show how the new theory matches former observations/experiments without having to add additional assumptions, such as Dark Matter/Energy or some such.)

This is the way science progresses, this is how scientific revolutions are "fought" and "won".

David

P.S. While some "Einstein camp" may "be angry at" you, I don't see anyone other than some highly unstable type trying to kill you, in any literal sense. Now, can you expect to have your ideas criticized, receiving a great deal of critical scrutiny? Almost certainly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of "proof".

You should expect that your ideas will receive quite a "beating", being "bashed" from all possible sides against competing ideas. This is not intended to be any form of personal attach (unless you make it so, either by the way you take it and respond, or the tone you take when making your challenges—so be careful, and control your emotions). What it is intended to do is make sure that only the strongest ideas survive, and, even then, as many of the "rough" spots are smoothed out as possible. (Think of it as a testing and polishing process.)

So, admittedly, this is not for the faint of heart. This is only for those that truly believe (as objectively as they can possibly muster) that they have a better idea.

So good luck.