BEAUTIFUL DEAD SCIENCE
Pentcho Valev
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. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
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."
Selling beautiful dead science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
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!
Mourning:
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 themit impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."
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.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://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. 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?"
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.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.thenation.com/doc/20090316/deresiewicz?rel=hp_picks
"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://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......tandis que
les sciences physiques, grandes victimes de ce rejet collectif des
jeunes Européens, dégringolent (- 5,5 %)."
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 ». (...) Cette
perception d'une « science mortifère » se double d'une « culture du
ressenti », sorte de sésame passe-partout utilisé pour justifier
l'acquisition, l'évaluation ou le rejet des connaissances. « J'ai eu à
faire récemment à un jeune étudiant en sciences qui n'était pas
d'accord avec la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein pour une raison
étonnante : il m'a dit qu'il ne la sentait pas », indique-t-il en
riant à moitié. Au bout du compte, ce soupçon d'imposture permanente
débouche sur une idée simple qui fait des ravages : « En sciences
comme ailleurs, tout est relatif. » Dans ce contexte, la vulgarisation
est d'un maigre secours car « la pédagogie ajoute du bruit et augmente
la confusion »."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Immortalist
A: You divide one by nothing and get a divide by zero error.
Q: Divide 14 sugar cubes into 3 cups of coffee so that each
cup has an odd number of sugar cubes.
A: 1,1,12
Riposte: 12 isn't odd!
A: It's an odd number of cubes to put in a cup of coffee (groan)
A guy decided to go to the brain transplant clinic to refreshen his
supply of brains. The secretary informed him that they had three kinds
of brains available at that time. Doctors' brains were going for $20
per ounce and lawyers' brains were getting $30 per ounce. And then
there were mathematicians' brains which were currently fetching $1000
per ounce.
"1000 dollars an ounce!" he cried. "Why are they so expensive?"
It takes more mathematicians to get an ounce of brains," she
explained.
Q :Why did the chicken cross the road?
Pierre de Fermat:
1: I just don't have room here to give the full explanation.
2: It did not fit on the margin on this side.
3: Crossing the road was the path with the minimum value of
propagation time.
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
Godel: It cannot be proved whether the chicken crossed the road.
Why did the chicken crossed the road?
Paul Erdos: It was forced to do so by the chicken-hole principle.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Georg Friedrich Riemann: The answer appears in Dirichlet's lectures.
Monsieur Turtoni
in August 2008. The interviewer is Adam Smith, Editor-in-Chief of
Nobelprize.org.
Donald Glaser discusses his definition of creativity in the context of
science, his transition from particle physics to molecular biology ,
his subsequent shift to neurobiology, and his current research
modelling the visual system. Glaser also explains why he co-founded
the first biotechnology company, his advice to students, and the value
of taking "dangerous chances.""
What interesting subjects!
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1960/glaser-interview.html
Pentcho Valev
http://www.universetoday.com/2010/03/18/this-is-getting-boring-general-relativity-passes-yet-another-big-test/
"In 1960, GR passed its first big test in a lab, here on Earth; the
Pound-Rebka experiment. And over the nine decades since its
publication, GR has passed test after test after test..."
The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency F varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation:
F'=F(1+V/c^2)
This means that, in accordance with the formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
either the speed of light c varies:
c'=c(1+V/c^2) (Einstein's 1911 equation given by Newton's emission
theory of light)
or the wavelength L varies:
L'=L/(1+V/c^2) (an equation which on close inspection can only be
characterized as idiotic)
Since theoretical physics is dead, Einsteinians can safely say "The
wavelength varies because Divine Albert said so" although Einstein has
claimed all along that it is the speed of light that varies:
The lie:
http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency AND
WAVELENGTH. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy. But the effect is tiny in earth's modest gravity. In 1960
Robert Pound and Glen Rebka of Harvard University finally succeed in
testing this crucial prediction, and they reported their results in
PRL. Today the so-called gravitational redshift is essential for
understanding the cosmos and operating the Global Positioning System
(GPS)."
The truth:
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."
As for the glorious "GR has passed test after test after test", it
should be replaced by the less glorious "Einsteinians have fudged test
after test after test":
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck ["sheere
luck" is a euphemism for "sheer fraud"], or a case of knowing the
result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been
known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams
measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by
a factor of four."
http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes.
Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de
Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse
à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le
périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du
soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574
s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux
autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique "
inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein
donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à
aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être
rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très
légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de
quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en
réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas
expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."
http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un
décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données
fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année
suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère
aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans
une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant
était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable
valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus
petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait
Eddington."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non
vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves,
issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas.
Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant
à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées
d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
"Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
The truth: Maxwell's theory says the speed of light does not depend on
the speed of the emitter but does depend on the speed of the observer:
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful
framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an
electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the
speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000
meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial
observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous
paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other
should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."
http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/doc/t/physique/d/relativite-restreinte-et-naissance-de-lespace-temps_509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à
la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche
à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui
est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage
avec une vitesse différente..."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate,
asserts that "light is always propagated in empty space with a
definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the
emitting body." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in
the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from
Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves
propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one
speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no
matter what the motion of the emitter."
The lie (always one leap ahead of the truth): Maxwell's theory says
the speed of light is absolute and does not depend on the speed of the
observer:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Relativity Tutorial: "But 200 years after Newton the theory of
electromagnetism was developed into Maxwell's equations. These
equations describe waves with a speed of 1/sqrt(epsilon_o*mu_o), where
epsilon_o is the constant describing the strength of the electrostatic
force in a vacuum, and mu_o is the constant describing the strength of
the magnetic interaction in a vacuum. This is an absolute velocity --
it is not relative to anything."
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
http://www.math.mcgill.ca/lseguin/physique.php
"Donc, Maxwell se demanda: "Mais pourquoi donc mes paramètres
correspondent-ils à la vitesse de la lumière ?" Et il fit des calculs
palpitants pendant longtemps. Après des heures de plaisir, il trouva
que ses équations prédisaient une vitesse c pour les ondes
électromagnétiques (la lumière par exemple) et que cette vitesse c
était une constante, peut importe le référentiel. Donc, peut importe
qui mesure la vitesse de la lumière, ça sera toujours c."
http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=glossaire&definition=1711
"D'après les théories de la physique moderne, et notamment les
équations de Maxwell, la lumière visible et toutes les ondes
électromagnétiques ont une vitesse constante dans le vide, la vitesse
de la lumière. On la considère donc comme une constante physique notée
c (du latin celeritas, « vitesse »). Mais elle n'est pas seulement
constante (pense-t-on) en tous les endroits (et à tous les âges) de
l'univers (principes cosmologiques faible et fort, respectivement) ;
elle l'est également d'un repère inertiel à un autre (principe
d'équivalence restreint). En d'autres termes : quel que soit le repère
inertiel de référence d'un observateur ou la vitesse de l'objet
émettant la lumière, tout observateur obtiendra la même mesure."
Definition of doublethink:
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."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
pva...@yahoo.com
John Jones
Pentcho Valev
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
"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."
Beautiful dead science's hymns:
http://slidingscalemusic.com/articles/Physics%20Today/vol58no7p56.pdf
When Isaac Newton wrote
The laws that we all quote,
It's now extremely apparent that he
Neglected to consider -- Relativity.
What focused our attention
On the fourth dimension?
(We'd been doing so well with just three.)
'Twas Mister Einstein's brainchild -- Relativity.
And who would think
And who'd forecast
That bodies shrink
When they go fast?
It makes old Isaac's theory
Look weary.
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!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
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 wrote:
Beautiful dead science:
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. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558kjihQQg&feature=PlayList&p=27DFC0155A909EEF
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."
Selling beautiful dead science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
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!
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
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."
Beautiful dead science does know the solution to the "biggest mystery"
but it is again a matter of shock and horror (in the absence of shock
and horror the world may stop singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):
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.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
"In 1929, the astronomer Edwin Hubble had discovered that distant
galaxies were moving away from us and that the farther away they got,
the faster they seemed to be receding."
What Edwin Hubble himself thought he had discovered:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."
Note the statement "any photon gradually loses its energy while
traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe".
Could that be replaced by "any photon gradually loses its SPEED while
traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe"?
Bappa
No greater bungler, nor any palmjobber more astute
Than Albert Einstein in presenting his equation cute!
His bungling killed all scientific logic
And replaced reason with mumbo-jumbo terrific.
Abuser of mathematics, corrupter of physics,
His influence lasted over many generations
With media, fiction, and fans in hysterics -
Their brains washed with absurd lotions.
Reality was abandoned for appearance
The world's population was trapped in a trance.
They got shit scared by the nuclear bomb;
The crooks carted off public moneys with aplomb!
Laws of nature were mixed and jumbled
Entropy and relativity together gambolled!
The papers became more and more abtruse;
Most honoured he, who could most confuse.
Now this is an entirely nice situation
The bigger the bullshitter, the more his reputation!
Is there any hope in sight?
Who will come to fix this plight?
heh-heh-heh-heh
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Pentcho Valev
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.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."
http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) What Einstein realized was that if c
did not change, then something else had to give. That something was
the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply,
maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time
are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of
space and time - space-time - as a thing that could flex and change,
expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the
observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that
didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of
the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics,
into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation
used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word:
It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of
experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of
relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe
works."
Arindam Banerjee
>
> - Show quoted text -
One more, for the good cause!
What greater bollocks than Einstein's theories of relativity?
What greater example of institutionalised depravity?
All the physicists are corrupt.
Their minds are totally fucked.
Yet they possess suaveness of speech!
From politicians they know how to leech.
Their tones, their gestures, promise mystery and plenty
To come after many many years, for now, urgently,
Part with the cash!
Else the atoms will smash!
Make no dissenting sound
The highest wisdom that we found
Is beyond the scope of all you unwashed fools.
Don't we hail from the finest schools?
John Jones
Pentcho Valev
with the gravitational potential, then it varies with the speed of the
light source as well:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Jones
Pentcho Valev
establish the constancy of the speed of light" and yet "textbook
accounts commonly assert" it did (and nobody cares about both what the
experiment established and what textbook accounts commonly assert):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf
John Norton: "However it [the Michelson-Morley experiment] appeared to
Einstein to do little more than support the idea that physics must
conform to the principle of relativity; it did not establish the
constancy of the speed of light, as later textbook accounts commonly
assert."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
By the way, John Norton is mistaken: Einstein taught that the
Michelson-Morley experiment had established the constancy of the speed
of light:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Beautiful dead science:
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. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558kjihQQg&feature=PlayList&p=27DFC0155A909EEF
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."
Selling beautiful dead science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
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!
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article7083453.ece
"There is a deeper problem facing British science. Many state schools
- trying to climb the league tables - now offer only general science
at GCSE, taught along hazily thematic lines, not discrete academic
disciplines. A-level physics is now almost exclusively the preserve of
private schools."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Beautiful dead science:
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. (...) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats'
famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the
kind of support it needs"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558kjihQQg&feature=PlayList&p=27DFC0155A909EEF
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."
Selling beautiful dead science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
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!
Beautiful dead science's hymns:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
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
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/theoretical-physicist-locates-our-universe-predicts-end-lost
"As such, general relativity makes more sense if our universe existed
in the wormhole..."