Discussion:
POSTSCIENTISM (DEAD SCIENCE)
(too old to reply)
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-16 11:51:37 UTC
Permalink
http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/
"However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been
sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of
chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of
fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as
absurd as those of any religious cult."

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/17/opinion/doc4ce35a105941b635950366.txt
"Mead's book on "Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism" forecasts
that we will look back on the last 70 years as a kind of Dark Age for
physics. Certainly there has been little significant progress and
major institutions like the American Physical Society have become so
ossified that anyone questioning their dogma is simply told "this is
the consensus view so you must be wrong." No effort is made to provide
a scientific response showing an actual reason why. This is evident in
global warming climate disruption as well as particle physics."

http://io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University:
"The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question
is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your
concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no
choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you
have to get rid of relativity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
rofession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. (...) The
people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific
method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the
theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and
not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are
based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these
people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity
theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is
constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics
theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes
an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it
impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/relativity-and-relativism/
Washington Times: "A frequently heard statement of cultural relativism
goes like this: "If it feels right for you, it's OK. Who is to say
you're wrong?" One individual's experience is as "valid" as another's.
There is no "preferred" or higher vantage point from which to judge
these things. Not just beauty, but right and wrong are in the eye of
the beholder. The "I" indeed is the "ultimate measure." The special
theory of relativity imposes on the physical world a claim that is
very similar to the one made by relativism. (...) So how come the
speed of light always stays the same? Einstein argued that when the
observer moves relative to an object, distance and time always adjust
themselves just enough to preserve light speed as a constant. Speed is
distance divided by time. So, Einstein argued, length contracts and
time dilates to just the extent needed to keep the speed of light ever
the same. Space and time are the alpha and omega of the physical
world. They are the stage within which everything happens. But if they
must trim and tarry whenever the observer moves, that puts "the
observer" in the driver's seat. Reality becomes observer-dependent.
Again, then, we find that the "I" is the ultimate measure. Pondering
this in Prague in the 1950s, Beckmann could not accept it. The
observer's function is to observe, he said, not to affect what's out
there. Relativity meant that two and two didn't quite add up any more
and elevated science into a priesthood of obscurity. Common sense
could no longer be trusted."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' and 'a prime example to show
that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'."

ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf
"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
"riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/22/highereducation.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method
is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes
all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew
"belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture
of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all,
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress."

http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike/Trouble.doc
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the
bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives.
They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They
have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking
over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and
rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so
much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living
spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the
old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something
perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds.
This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and
examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is
optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas
and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a
certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal
freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the
people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a
product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not
survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure,
China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it
either."

http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/fun/entertainment/books/x1616319221/Q-A-with-astrophysicist-Hilton-Ratcliffe
Hilton Ratcliffe: "If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang
Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma
(which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance)
then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the
darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's
most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have
become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report
showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at
school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the
past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over
the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics
teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of
physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to
only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain
was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and
Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum
physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now
facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as
pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Reality
2010-12-16 13:47:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pentcho Valev
http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/
"However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been
sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of
chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of
fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as
absurd as those of any religious cult."
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2010/11/17/opinion/doc4ce35a105941...
"Mead's book on "Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism" forecasts
that we will look back on the last 70 years as a kind of Dark Age for
physics. Certainly there has been little significant progress and
major institutions like the American Physical Society have become so
ossified that anyone questioning their dogma is simply told "this is
the consensus view so you must be wrong." No effort is made to provide
a scientific response showing an actual reason why. This is evident in
global warming climate disruption as well as particle physics."
http://io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy
"The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question
is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your
concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no
choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you
have to get rid of relativity."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
rofession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. (...) The
people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific
method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the
theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and
not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are
based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these
people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity
theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is
constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics
theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes
an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect
that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract
physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider
the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a
pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."
http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of
science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it
impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/relativity-and-relati...
Washington Times: "A frequently heard statement of cultural relativism
goes like this: "If it feels right for you, it's OK. Who is to say
you're wrong?" One individual's experience is as "valid" as another's.
There is no "preferred" or higher vantage point from which to judge
these things. Not just beauty, but right and wrong are in the eye of
the beholder. The "I" indeed is the "ultimate measure." The special
theory of relativity imposes on the physical world a claim that is
very similar to the one made by relativism. (...) So how come the
speed of light always stays the same? Einstein argued that when the
observer moves relative to an object, distance and time always adjust
themselves just enough to preserve light speed as a constant. Speed is
distance divided by time. So, Einstein argued, length contracts and
time dilates to just the extent needed to keep the speed of light ever
the same. Space and time are the alpha and omega of the physical
world. They are the stage within which everything happens. But if they
must trim and tarry whenever the observer moves, that puts "the
observer" in the driver's seat. Reality becomes observer-dependent.
Again, then, we find that the "I" is the ultimate measure. Pondering
this in Prague in the 1950s, Beckmann could not accept it. The
observer's function is to observe, he said, not to affect what's out
there. Relativity meant that two and two didn't quite add up any more
and elevated science into a priesthood of obscurity. Common sense
could no longer be trusted."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' and 'a prime example to show
that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds'."
ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf
"From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
"riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book "The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a dismal swamp of
obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is "something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/22/highereducation.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method
is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes
all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew
"belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture
of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all,
curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that
it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and
it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion
of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for
the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes
this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any
hope for UK? I am really not sure."
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
"Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress."
http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike/Trouble.doc
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the
bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives.
They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They
have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking
over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and
rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so
much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living
spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the
old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something
perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds.
This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and
examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is
optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas
and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a
certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal
freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the
people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a
product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not
survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure,
China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it
either."
http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/fun/entertainment/books/x16163192...
Hilton Ratcliffe: "If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang
Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma
(which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance)
then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the
darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's
most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have
become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report
showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at
school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the
past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over
the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics
teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of
physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to
only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain
was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and
Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum
physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now
facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as
pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"
Pentcho Valev
You are the greatest man here


You are the greatest man here
thank you
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-17 07:31:07 UTC
Permalink
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In the era of Postscientism, the analogue of 2+2=5 is Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate according to which the speed of
light is "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein June 30, 1905:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
(...) From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at
the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in
the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved
with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B
the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B
lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in
the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still
holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and
also when the points A and B coincide. If we assume that the result
proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved
line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A
is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to
A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained
at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2
second slow."

The analogue of 2+2=4 is the antithesis of the light postulate given
by Newton's emission theory of light and confirmed by the Michelson-
Morley experiment:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Convincing the world that 2+2=5 is only the first step in the long
process of destruction of human rationality. In a second step, the
destruction becomes irreversible as ideologues start regularly
shocking believers by rejecting 2+2=5:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.lauralee.com/news/relativitychallenged.htm
Question: Jumping off a bandwagon is risky - surely you could have
committed career suicide by suggesting something as radical as a
variable speed of light?
Magueijo: That's true. Maybe I wouldn't have been so carefree if I
hadn't had this Royal Society fellowship: it gives a safety net for 10
years. You can go anywhere and do whatever you want as long as you're
productive.
Question: So you're free to be the angry young man of physics?
Magueijo: Maybe it comes across that I'm bitter and twisted, but if
you're reading a book, the body language is lost. You're talking to me
face to face: you can see I'm really playing with all this. I'm not an
angry young man, I'm just being honest. There's no hard feelings. I
may say offensive things, but everything is very good natured.
Question: So why should the speed of light vary?
Magueijo: It's more useful to turn that round. The issue is more why
should the speed of light be constant? The constancy of the speed of
light is the central thing in relativity but we have lots of problems
in theoretical physics, and these probably result from assuming that
relativity works all the time. Relativity must collapse at some
point...

http://www.rense.com/general13/ein.htm
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten
By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor
The Sunday Times - London
"A group of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/science/e-and-mc2-equality-it-seems-is-relative.html
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "WE NEED TO
DROP A POSTULATE, PERHAPS THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT."

Finally, the destruction of human rationality becomes ABSOLUTELY
IRREVERSIBLE as ideologues start teaching that the Truth of the Divine
Theory is independent of both 2+2=5 and 2+2=4:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts, Aug 16, 2010: "As I said before, Special Relativity would
not be affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second
postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory
one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Ogle dataminer
2010-12-17 07:52:04 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 17, 7:31 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Valev still taking to himself - nobody else cares what he thinks or
says
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-17 08:23:40 UTC
Permalink
Metaphorical representations of Postscientism:

The Divine Science institutionalized but "is no longer getting the
kind of support it needs":


Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

The ideologue proves that Dead Science is both alive and beautiful
(note the unavoidable final frustration of anyone pursuing some "line
of inquiry"):


Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead,
that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
........................
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of
inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!

The hymn of Postscientism:


Where once was light
Now darkness falls
Where once was love
Love is no more
.................................
These tears you cry
Have come too late
Take back the lies
The hurt, the blame
And you will weep
When you face the end alone
You are lost
You can never go home
You are lost
You can never go home.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-20 09:24:56 UTC
Permalink
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink 2001: "Snow stands up for the view that exact science is,
in its own right, an essential part of civilisation, and should not
merely be valued for its technological applications. Anyone who does
not know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and is proud of it too,
exposes oneself as a Philistine. Snow's plea will strike a chord with
every physicist who has ever attended a birthday party. But his call
for cultural recognition creates obligations too. Before one can claim
that acquaintance with the Second Law is as indispensable to a
cultural education as Macbeth or Hamlet, it should obviously be clear
what this law states. This question is surprisingly difficult. The
Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half
century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the
British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint
a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the
meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not
settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher
Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations
of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941,
p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it
continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is
the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and
mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical
development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He
characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal
swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that
physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p.
8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot
understand.....This summary leads to the question whether it is
fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of
the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the
unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the
strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that
Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion
about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the
thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~wwwgrnsl/jos/publications/AgingTime.pdf
Jos Uffink 2010: "Another main theme in discussions on the arrow of
time is irreversibility. A process is called irreversible if it cannot
be fully undone. Once it has taken place, the original state cannot be
completely restored, even with the help of the most sophisticated
auxiliary apparatus imaginable. Examples of such processes are
erosion, corruption, decay, and of course, aging. Planck famously
argued that all processes in the real world are irreversible. He also
claimed that this was a consequence of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. It is not a trivial matter to state what the Second
Law of Thermodynamics actually says (cf. Uffink, 2001). There are, as
Bridgman (1961) conservatively estimated, as many formulations as
there have been discussions of it! A relatively safe formulation is
the statement that according to thermodynamics, all systems in an
equilibrium state are characterized by a quantity called entropy, and
that in all transitions that a system can go through during adiabatic
isolation, ending in another equilibrium state, this quantity can
never decrease. However, the confusion surrounding the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is not confined to classical thermodynamics, the theory
developed by Clausius, Kelvin, Gibbs, and Planck. During the twentieth
century, many modifications of the theory have been proposed, in order
to make it applicable to more general types of systems and situations.
This has resulted in a plethora of theories, calling themselves
"generalized" thermodynamics, "extended" or "rational" thermodynamics,
thermodynamics of irreversible processes, nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, continuum thermodynamics, etc. On some occasions, the
same name is even claimed by rather different theories."

Jos Uffink is the leading world expert in the foundations of
thermodynamics and yet between 2001 and 2010 "the confusion
surrounding the Second Law of Thermodynamics" he calls the attention
to has not been discussed at all among thermodynamicists and other
philosophers of science! Any of them somehow feels that the Augean
task is unaccomplishable and it really is. The death of (this) science
is irreversible. This, of course, does not mean that thermodynamicists
and philosophers of science will stop teaching it to freshmen.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Ogle dataminer
2010-12-20 15:28:48 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 20, 9:24 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Valev still taking to himself - nobody else cares what he thinks or
says
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-21 09:25:32 UTC
Permalink
It seems revolutions in science in Kuhnian sense occur only when a
consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting
one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything
within its scope in the 18th century, at the end of the 19th century
it seemed so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it
when they were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment
(although in 1887 the emission theory was the only one able to explain
the result of the experiment). In other words, a pre-revolutionary
situation in science is characterized by unbearable boredom, not by an
unbearably large set of anomalies as Kuhn teaches. Initially the
inconsistency (Einstein's relativity) cures the boredom but eventually
comes to a dead end and science silently and irreversibly dies.
Perhaps this constitutes a feature of a more general process - the
civilization itself is imperceptibly dying:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to
study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that,
the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding
other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are
getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard
about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in
technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability
for critical thinking in order to function in their daily
environment."

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2004/LesEchos/19077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des
relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la
société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens
dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples
centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les
relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas
optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit
tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux »."

http://mneaquitaine.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/loccident-face-a-la-crise-des-vocations-scientifiques/
"L'Occident face à la crise des vocations scientifiques. Le mal
s'accroît, mais le diagnostic s'affine. Les pays développés, qui
souffrent, sans exception, d'une désaffection des jeunes pour les
filières scientifiques, pointent du doigt la façon dont les sciences
sont aujourd'hui enseignées. Trop de théorie, pas assez de pratique ;
des enseignements qui n'invitent pas au questionnement... (...) ...les
sciences physiques, grandes victimes de ce rejet collectif des jeunes
Européens, dégringolent (- 5,5 %)."

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
"PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE? In CEER's latest report, published 11
August 2006 and funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Professor
Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson show that the decline in physics
as student numbers fall and university departments shut is more
serious than is generally appreciated."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/27/science-easier-exams
"Pupils of today struggle with science questions of the 60s. Evidence
shows standards are slipping as comparison is made of exam papers
through the decades. There has been a "catastrophic slippage" in
standards of science taught in schools, leaving children with a
superficial understanding of chemistry, biology and physics, according
to the Royal Society of Chemistry."

http://www.thenation.com/article/lab-test-who-profits-scientific-research
"The most striking thing about the way we talk about science these
days is just how little we talk about it at all. No large fundamental
question focuses our attention on the adventure of discovery; no grand
public project stirs our reflection on the perils of technological
control. Nothing for decades has approached the imaginative impact of
relativity or the double helix, the moon landing or the bomb."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/11/sedgemoresays
"A FAREWELL TO PHYSICS? That physics education is in decline is beyond
doubt; the figures speak for themselves. According to a research study
recently published by Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson,
educationalists based at the University of Buckingham, the numbers of
students taking A-level physics has fallen by 35% since 1990, at the
same time that A-level entries rose overall by over 12%. The decline
is claimed to be most noticeable in the state school sector. During
the same period, a number of university physics departments have
closed, or been merged with others in order to save costs."

http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de
crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et
économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle
connaissent une crise grave. (...) Mais le plus grave peut-être dans
la déculturation de la science se situe à l'extérieur de la recherche
scientifique, à l'interface entre le milieu scientifique proprement
dit et la société au sens large."

http://www.archipope.net/article-12278372-6.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde.
Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a
connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond,
physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections
scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is
sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the
oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still
alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long
before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
with religion and prostitution. (...) I would agree with Popper's
argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no way to
prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at the
very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to the
scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe in
the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
prostitutes."

http://blog.reycom.org/archives/109
"La crise des vocations est générale dans toutes les sciences dures.
En témoignent les articles récurrents de revues spécialisés telles que
Physics World, l'excellent journal de l'Institute of Physics, ou la
Recherche qui a longtemps conservé un lien fort avec la recherche
publique menée en France. Elles s'en sont émues parce que c'était à
leurs lecteurs potentiels que cette crise s'attaquait... Le tableau
noir des sciences est peut-être entrain de cesser d'accepter des
marques de craie blanche. Il restera simplement noir. Dans ce paysage
accablant, les journalistes scientifiques peuvent toujours continuer
de ramer comme le faisait la reine Rouge de Lewis Carol, qui courait
simplement pour se maintenir sur place... Le courant de la rivière de
la course à la rentabilité risque de se transformer en rapide,
entrainant tous les coureurs, sans exception, vers le trou noir de
l'oubli!"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-24 07:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Relativists about Dead Science:

http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/rose_sci_2/physics_ideology_2.html
Ideology of/in Contemporary Physics
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
"In this way, major advances in modern physics, especially in
relativity and quantum mechanics, have paradoxically fed an intensely
irrational current. One knows the popular expression for scepticism
and unconcern: 'everything is relative . . . as Einstein said' (and
this is not so harmless as one would believe). At a seemingly more
elaborate level, the mad attempts of Bergson to criticise and
reinstate the theory of relativity within his own philosophy, even if
they took place fifty years ago, still give evidence of a serious
crisis in the relations between science and philosophy. (...) As far
as the theories of relativity or quantum physics are concerned, the
last fifty years have hardly witnessed any major evolution in their
mode of presentation. Most handbooks are surprisingly similar,
repeating indefinitely the same schemes of inner organisation. As a
general rule, a historical or rather chronological introduction - of
dubious accuracy - is followed by some philosophical reflections in
which traditional dogmas are enunciated under a much more schematic
and poorer form than that of their creators. Having fulfilled this
first task, the author then approaches the 'strictly scientific'
content of the book. It consists, in general, of purely theoretical,
exaggeratedly formalistic accounts, from which references to real
experiments steadily vanish. Not a single impression is left of the
real procedures of scientific activity, of the dialectic between
theory and practice, heuristic models and formalism, axioms and
history. Modern physics appears as a collection of mathematical
formulae, whose only justification is that 'they work'. Moreover, the
'examples' used to 'concretise' the knowledge are often totally
unreal, and actually have the effect of making it even more abstract.
Such is the case when the explanation of special relativity is based
on the consideration of the entirely fictitious spatial and temporal
behaviour of clocks and trains (today sometimes one speaks of
rockets . . . it sounds better . . . but it is as stupid!). This kind
of science fiction (which is not even funny) is the more dangerous as
erases the existence of a large experimental practice, where the
theory of relativity is embodied in the study of high-energy
particles, involving hundreds of scientific workers, thousands of tons
of steel and millions of dollars. (...) This teaching situation, even
if it appears unhealthy and harmful with regard to the simple aims of
training and teaching (transmission of knowledge), is however in
perfect ideological harmony with the general context of modern
physics. A closed arduous, forbidding education, which stresses
technical manipulation more than conceptual understanding, in which
neither past difficulties nor future problems in the search for
knowledge appear, perfectly fulfils two essential roles: to promote
hierarchisation and the 'elite' spirit on behalf of a science shown as
being intrinsically difficult, to be within the reach of only a few
privileged individuals; and to impose a purely operational technical
concept of knowledge, far from a true conceptual understanding, which
would necessarily be critical and thus would reveal the limits of this
knowledge. This is why discussions about educational problems take on
the form of ideological struggle. It is also why, because of the
essentially political nature of the resistance to change in this
field, no reformist illusions should be entertained as to the
possibility of any major successes, as long as such a struggle only
relies on the internal critique of scientific workers and teachers,
remaining within the framework of an unchanged technical and social
division of labour. (...) The very availability of an essay as this
reflects the existence of a deep ideological crisis in the scientific
milieu. This crisis is particularly obvious in the field of physics.
It is expressed, on the one hand, by a lack of motivation on the part
of many young research workers, and, on the other hand, by the efforts
of readjustment and self-justification on the part of the
establishment. It is characterised by a serious loss of credibility in
traditional values, which before had made it possible for research
workers to create acceptable self-images. (...) Average scientists do
not even control the meaning of their own work. Very often, they are
obscure labourers in theoretical computation or experimentation; they
only have a very narrow perspective of the global process to which
their work is related. Confined to a limited subject, in a specialised
field, their competence is extremely restricted. It is only necessary
to listen to the complaints of the previous generations' scientists on
the disappearance of 'general culture' in science. In fact, the case
of physics is eloquent on the subject. One can say that, until the
beginning of this century, the knowledge of an average physicist had
progressed in a cumulative way, including progressively the whole of
previous discovery. The training of physicists demanded an almost
universal knowledge in the various spheres of physics. The arrival of
'modern' physics has brought about not only the parcelling of fields
of knowledge, but also the abandonment of whole areas. I have already
said that important sections of nineteenth-century physics are today
excluded from the scientific knowledge of many physicists. Therefore
the fields of competence are not only getting narrower, but some of
them are practically vanishing altogether. If physicists no longer
know about physics, a fortiori they know nothing about science! The
idea of a 'scientific culture', of a 'scientific method', of a
'scientific spirit', which were common to all scientists and used to
give them a large capacity for the rational understanding of all
reality, have turned into huge practical jokes. True, some scientists
have access to a global vision of their field or even of the social
organisation of science and social ties, but that tends to depend
solely on the position of power they occupy. The others, massively,
are dispossessed of all mastery over their activity. They have no
control, no understanding of its direction."

Anti-relativists about Dead Science:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
Peter Hayes: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of
thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds
that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics
held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to
discredit their technical objections to relativity as being
scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative
possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of
Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an
ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how
relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it
scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make
the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument
are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of
the philosophy of science. (...) The prediction that clocks will move
at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of
explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of
relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is
only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to
different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this
criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent
contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is
rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by
professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a
general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by
asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain
why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the
argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified,
highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the
theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a
shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading
popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity
reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious
inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's
claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are
overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right
for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a
potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice
wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept
relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an
understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears
illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are
necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not
approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their
expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on
popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are
youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts?
Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with
true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed
to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument
of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join
the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend
disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail
to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the
inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this
merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The
gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research
institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises
problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an
ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of
one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the
apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it.
Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for
Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given
experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable
approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to
the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the
special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary
scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates
how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as
when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be
called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents
the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also
in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."

A telling convergence? Yet Dead Science is dead - the world will stop
singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" but this will mark the end of the old story,
not the beginning of a new story:

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!


We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-26 09:33:28 UTC
Permalink
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/rose_sci_2/physics_ideology_2.html
Ideology of/in Contemporary Physics
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond
"I have already said that important sections of nineteenth-century
physics are today excluded from the scientific knowledge of many
physicists. Therefore the fields of competence are not only getting
narrower, but some of them are practically vanishing altogether. If
physicists no longer know about physics, a fortiori they know nothing
about science! The idea of a 'scientific culture', of a 'scientific
method', of a 'scientific spirit', which were common to all scientists
and used to give them a large capacity for the rational understanding
of all reality, have turned into huge practical jokes. True, some
scientists have access to a global vision of their field or even of
the social organisation of science and social ties, but that tends to
depend solely on the position of power they occupy. The others,
massively, are dispossessed of all mastery over their activity. They
have no control, no understanding of its direction."

This explains the coexistence and the equal importance of the
following texts:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/price.pdf
Huw Price, Centre for Time, University of Sydney, Australia
"A lot of time and ink has been devoted to the question how entropy
should be defined, or whether it can be defined at all in certain
cases..."

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
actually a RED HERRING."

Orwell's "doublethink" should be replaced by "multiplethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-28 11:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Deductive science: what a single false axiom (Einstein's 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate) can produce:

http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "General Relativity opened the door to an even deeper
upheaval of the common concept of time. However, most popular
treatments of science have a tendency, when speaking of General
Relativity (GR), and especially when describing relativistic
cosmological models (Inflation, Big Bang,...), to use a language which
suggests that GR reintroduces the notion of temporal flow, which
Special Relativity had abolished. Far from it. The spacetime of GR is
just a "timeless" as the special relativistic one. The Big Bang should
not be referred to as the "birth" of the universe, or its "creation"
ex nihilo, but as one of the possible "boundaries" of a strongly
deformed (timeless) spacetime block. Far from reintroducing the notion
of temporal flow, the infinite variety of possible Einsteinian
cosmological models furnish some striking examples of conceivable
"worlds" where the unreality of this flow becomes palpable. For
example, one can imagine a spacetime containing both big bangs (i.e.
"lower" boundaries) and big crunches ("upper" boundaries), and such
that the privileged "arrow of time" defined by the gradient of entropy
in the vicinity of these various spacetime boundaries is, for each
boundary, directed towards the interior of the spacetime (as it is for
the boundary of our spacetime that is conventionally called "the Big
Bang")."

The martyr was quite right (Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics"
on his deathbed):

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The Farce of Physics
Bryan Wallace
"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that
the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the
whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this
postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The
speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Martin Nicholson
2010-12-28 12:13:14 UTC
Permalink
On Dec 28, 11:41 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

Valev still taking to himself - nobody else cares what he thinks or
says
Helmut Wabnig
2010-12-28 16:19:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 04:13:14 -0800 (PST), Martin Nicholson
Post by Ogle dataminer
Valev still taking to himself - nobody else cares what he thinks or
says
You cared.

Hello, Mr. Nobody Else!

w.
Pentcho Valev
2010-12-30 10:35:57 UTC
Permalink
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/5666-the-great-global-warming-crackup
The Great Global-warming Crackup
"I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," says Princeton
physics professor Robert Austin. Harold Lewis, emeritus professor of
physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a member
of the American Physical Society for 67 years, says Climategate is
further proof that "the global warming scam ... is the greatest and
most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as
a physicist."

Note that the original scientific question "Is there man-made global
warming?" has become pointless and will never be answered. Any
scientific question becomes pointless in a civilization where science
is dying. There can only be never-ending ideological wars destroying
the last remnants of rationality:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
Peter Hayes: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of
thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds
that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics
held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to
discredit their technical objections to relativity as being
scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative
possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of
Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an
ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how
relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it
scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make
the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument
are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of
the philosophy of science. (...) The prediction that clocks will move
at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of
explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of
relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is
only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to
different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this
criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent
contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is
rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by
professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a
general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by
asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain
why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the
argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified,
highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the
theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a
shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading
popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity
reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious
inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's
claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are
overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right
for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a
potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice
wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept
relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an
understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears
illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are
necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not
approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their
expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on
popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are
youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts?
Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with
true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed
to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument
of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join
the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend
disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail
to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the
inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this
merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The
gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research
institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises
problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an
ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of
one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the
apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it.
Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for
Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given
experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable
approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to
the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the
special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary
scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates
how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as
when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be
called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents
the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also
in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable
interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It
would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will
take the slightest notice of them."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
2011-01-08 08:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Postscientific Art:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.0016v2.pdf
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"

http://youtu.be/5PkLLXhONvQ
"Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"


"Prof Brian Cox explores Time in super slow motion"


"Prof Brian Cox explores Einstein's understanding of time"


"Large Hadron Rap"


"Prof Brian Greene sings string theory"


"The Edwin Hubble-Red-Shift-Big-Bang-in-English-Accent Rap"


"Einstein's Own Words - Original music by Alex Hirsch"

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/
"Teaching Children to Worship Albert Einstein"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
2011-02-03 15:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Fruitful orthodox discussions in the era of Postscientism:

http://hps.elte.hu/PIRT.Budapest/
Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy In the Interpretations of
Relativity Theory, Budapest 4-6 September 2009
"The objective of the conference is to discuss the mathematical,
physical and philosophical elements in the physical interpretations of
Relativity Theory (PIRT); the physical and philosophical arguments and
commitments shaping those interpretations and the various applications
of the theory, especially in relativistic cosmology and relativistic
quantum theory. The organizing committee is open for discussion of
recent advances in investigations of the mathematical, logical and
conceptual structure of Relativity Theory, as well as for analysis of
the cultural, ideological and philosophical factors that have roles in
its evolution and in the development of the modern physical world view
determined to a considerable extent by that theory. The conference
intends to review the fruitfulness of orthodox Relativity, as
developed from the Einstein-Minkowski formulation, and to suggest how
history and philosophy of science clarify the relationship between the
accepted relativistic formal structure and the various physical
interpretations associated with it. While the organizing committee
encourages critical investigations and welcomes both Einsteinian and
non-Einsteinian (Lorentzian, etc.) approaches, including the recently
proposed ether-type theories, it is assumed that the received formal
structure of the theory is valid and anti-relativistic papers will not
be accepted."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

Helmut Wabnig
2010-12-17 09:12:47 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:52:04 -0800 (PST), Ogle dataminer
Post by Ogle dataminer
Valev still taking to himself - nobody else cares what he thinks or
says
Same applies to you and me.

w.
Androcles
2010-12-17 09:51:53 UTC
Permalink
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 23:52:04 -0800 (PST), Ogle dataminer
| <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|
| >On Dec 17, 7:31 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| >Valev still taking to himself - nobody else cares what he thinks or
| >says
|
|
| Same applies to you and me.
|
| w.
|
Very observant of you, wabnigger. Let's see what Einstein thinks instead.

"We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving system,
is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have assumed, this is the case
in the stationary system; for we have not as yet furnished the proof that
the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is compatible with
the principle of relativity." -- § 3. Theory of the Transformation of
Co-ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in
Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former -- ON THE
ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES -- Einstein.
< http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >

Einstein has to PROVE light's speed is paranormal.
spudnik
2010-12-21 00:44:21 UTC
Permalink
I know; no new math!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...