🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 13, 11:29 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09051352-has-einstei...
> "Has Einstein failed physics? The GBP3.6bn Large Hadron Collider is
> one of world's most advanced scientific experiments, built to smash
> protons together at huge speeds, recreating conditions moments after
> the Big Bang. Unfortunately it doesn't work. Now a new paper by a
> North East academic presents the intriguing possibility that the Large
> Hadron Collider didn't work not because of mechanical failure, but
> because basic theories of physics may be wrong. Dr Peter Hayes says:
> 'Theoretical physicists have been barking up the wrong tree for the
> last hundred years - because Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is
> inconsistent.....Dr Peter Hayes is senior lecturer in politics at the
> University of Sunderland. In his latest paper 'The Ideology of
> Relativity' Dr Hayes argues that Albert Einstein's theory of
> relativity - perhaps the most famous scientific theory in history -
> should be viewed as an ideology, not as a science. He argues that its
> impact on popular culture and science has been so influential
> precisely because as a scientific theory it doesn't actually make
> sense.....The amazing thing about Einstein's theory of relativity is
> that it has kept going. It is built on contradictions, but these very
> contradictions means that almost anything 'proves' that it is right.
> It is a bit like a theory where you say 1 + 1 = 2, but also that 1+ 1
> = 3.....'The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of
> ideology not only in the profession of physics but also in the
> philosophy of science.'  'The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the
> Clock Paradox,' appeared in Social Epistemology, January 2009."

Dr Peter Huyes with his explanations only contributes to a bigger mess
in physic. Saying 1+1=2 and at same time 1+1=3 shows that he likes the
mess but it shows that doesn't like or can't use the LT to make more
precised mathematical observations. In his case he has to swear, upon
his words or so, if he likes to believe him. The reality is that LT is
an approximation of the GT and the Principle of the equivalence is a
fake conclusion. These two assumptions are the cause of the
apparitions of so many wrong conclusions as there are the relativity
of the time, length, mass and others failures. In my articles
published in this group I did explain well why Einstein theory is
errant and nobody liked to hear about that, fact that means,
pfysicists aren't dispused to change their minds and this is the case.
For peoples who like to see mine articles I give the web side of mine
Galilei-NEwton group: http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
Stamenin.


> See also:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> IS RELATIVITY AN INCONSISTENCY?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> INCONSISTENCY IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> LARGE HADRON COLLIDER AND EINSTEIN 1954 CONFESSION
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
> EINSTEINIANA'S LOGIC
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com