info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Nothing Can Make Dead Physics Worse
5 views
Skip to first unread message
pentch...@gmail.com
Feb 19, 2022, 9:45:52 AM2/19/22
to
Peter Woit: "Fundamental physical theory may now be over, replaced with a pseudo-science, but at least that means that things in this subject can't get any worse." https://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12604
Correct. Nothing can make dead science worse. Not even this:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "I wrote a research proposal about inflation (in the early universe, not in your supermarket) and it bounced back because I didn't explain its relevance to "sex, gender, and diversity". I need to add a paragraph on this. Anyone has an idea what to write?" https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1494937030207365121
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Correct. Nothing can make dead science worse. Not even this:
Sabine Hossenfelder: "I wrote a research proposal about inflation (in the early universe, not in your supermarket) and it bounced back because I didn't explain its relevance to "sex, gender, and diversity". I need to add a paragraph on this. Anyone has an idea what to write?" https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1494937030207365121
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
pentch...@gmail.com
Feb 19, 2022, 6:47:38 PM2/19/22
to
Sabine Hossenfelder: "Of course the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics want me to stop pointing out they are working on pseudoscience." https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1490945304438345728
If "the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics...are working on pseudoscience", then fundamental physics is dead, isn't it? Who or what killed it? Let me guess: the killer is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood.
The texts below imply that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), physics has been long dead. The so called fundamental physics is actually a pernicious but lucrative ideology.
"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] 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." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
If "the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics...are working on pseudoscience", then fundamental physics is dead, isn't it? Who or what killed it? Let me guess: the killer is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood.
The texts below imply that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), physics has been long dead. The so called fundamental physics is actually a pernicious but lucrative ideology.
"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] 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." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
pentch...@gmail.com
Feb 20, 2022, 4:22:39 PM2/20/22
to
Peter Woit: "The worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology." http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
The correct number is 117, not 25:
"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 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 triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
Again: "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." No shame, theoretical physicists? No shame, philosophers of science?
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
The correct number is 117, not 25:
"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 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 triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
Again: "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." No shame, theoretical physicists? No shame, philosophers of science?
See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages