On what reasons you call me liar?
I didn't call you a liar, I just said I don't believe your claim. You need to learn the difference.
The reason I don't believe your claim is that:
You've given no evidence to support it
Your posting history here does not suggest any expertise in theoretical physics
Your paraphrasing of your rejection letter is both self-aggrandising and denegrating of the editors of the physics journal
I don't think that a physics journal primarily concerned primarily with particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology would be accepting of a "Paper has demonstrated with rigid math, that not only a long rotating cylinder, but a natural object (rotating Black Hole's ergosphere) acts as time machine."
I also don't think that an editorial board would state, in essence, that while we can find no errors, we feel there are errors and you should publish elsewhere
Finally, your history of publishing here demonstrates a basic lack of understanding, or perhaps deliberate misunderstanding, of some of the core philosophical concepts of the sciences
None of this precludes you actually having done what you say you have, I just need sufficient evidence to overcome my skepticism.
