"not even trying: the corruption of real science"

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

2012
by Bruce G Charlton (Author)
4.4 4.4 out of 5 stars 61
3.9 on Goodreads
35 ratings

Real science is dead.

Researchers are no longer trying to seek and speak the truth. Scientists
no longer believe in the truth. They no longer believe that there is an
eternal unchanging reality beyond our human organisation which they have
a duty to discover and disseminate. Hence, the vast structures of
personnel and resources that constitute modern science are not real
science but merely a professional research bureaucracy.

The consequences? Research literature must be assumed to be worthless or
misleading and should almost always be ignored.

In practice, this means that nearly all science needs to be demolished
(or allowed to collapse) and real science rebuilt outside the
professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists
who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron
law.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer ‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a
Cosmopolitan’ by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak.
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer ‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a
Cosmopolitan’ by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak.
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.

QED is based on SR.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer 'no'. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See 'Diaries of a
Cosmopolitan' by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak.
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.
QED is based on SR.

Supposing that Einstem had such an opinion. (probably not)

"No" was also the best possible answer
to get rid of the nuisance in the shortest possible time.
Note also that it is not clear at all what "atomic components"
might have meant at the time. (1921!)
For better understanding of the issues you would need a transcript
of !both sides! of the conversation.

Einstein worked with this Count Kesser on subjects like pacifism.
There is no indication that Kessler had much command of physics
beyond the obsolete high school level of his youth,

Jan

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer 'no'. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See 'Diaries of a
Cosmopolitan' by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak.
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.
QED is based on SR.

Supposing that Einstem had such an opinion. (probably not)
"No" was also the best possible answer
to get rid of the nuisance in the shortest possible time.
Note also that it is not clear at all what "atomic components"
might have meant at the time. (1921!)
For better understanding of the issues you would need a transcript
of !both sides! of the conversation.
Einstein worked with this Count Kesser on subjects like pacifism.
There is no indication that Kessler had much command of physics
beyond the obsolete high school level of his youth,
Jan

So, "nuisance" is how you see that kind of question
of matters of fact?

Einstein, for example, at one point addressed his
opinion in whether atoms were "real", and he helps
to effect to reflect that in the operationalist,
instrumentalist account, that they're positive in
the positivist sense and in the physical model
and thusly "real", yet, then he also averred that
particles are a conceit in a continuum mechanics,
and that it's a continuum mechanics "the real",
so, it's more like you don't understand the
context where he replied in the negative,
now for that matter do you appear to know
that there's a furthermore stronger logicist
positivist instrumentalist operationalist
account, about that.

Then Feynman and QED and inventing virtual photons
everywhere, you know, unladen African or European
mass-less charge-less discrete conceits to a
model of wave action a continuum mechanics,
those of course are way less "real" and furthermore
they never show up to the operationalist/instrumentalist,
only the outcomes.

So, not only are you wrong about that,
you're also not right about that.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer ‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a
Cosmopolitan’ by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak.
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.
QED is based on SR.

That remains to be demonstrated. Quantum physics is still hobbled by SR
but is trying to free itself from time dilation.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul B. Andersen
QED is based on SR.

That remains to be demonstrated.

Does this mean that you are ignorant of the fact
that Quantum Electrodynamics unites quantum physics
and relativity?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Quantum physics is still hobbled by SR
but is trying to free itself from time dilation.

Can you please explain what this statement means?

How is Quantum Mechanics (Bohr & co) "hobbled by SR",
and how is quantum mechanics trying to free itself
from time dilation?

I know you won't answer.
You never try to defend your ridiculous claims.

You are so ignorant of the most basic physics
that you babble meaningless statements like above.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul B. Andersen
QED is based on SR.

That remains to be demonstrated.

Does this mean that you are ignorant of the fact
that Quantum Electrodynamics unites quantum physics
and relativity?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Quantum physics is still hobbled by SR
but is trying to free itself from time dilation.

Can you please explain what this statement means?
How is Quantum Mechanics (Bohr & co) "hobbled by SR",
and how is quantum mechanics trying to free itself
from time dilation?
I know you won't answer.
You never try to defend your ridiculous claims.

Ridiculous indeed, already for the Old Quantum Mechanics.
Sommerfeld for example applied relativity to the Bohr atom
to obtain correct results for some of the fine structure.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
You are so ignorant of the most basic physics
that you babble meaningless statements like above.

Not just ignorant of basic physics,
also in ignorance of much of the history of it,

Jan