🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=09051352-has-einstein-failed-physics
"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."

See also:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/ebfefdde099eac1e?
IS RELATIVITY AN INCONSISTENCY?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/4197b0c99ba75a04?
INCONSISTENCY IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8416948c07e8895b?
LARGE HADRON COLLIDER AND EINSTEIN 1954 CONFESSION

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/2cd802e90d423b1e?
EINSTEINIANA'S LOGIC

Another nice description of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

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."

Scientists should EXPLICITLY abandon Einstein's Potemkin villages and
start considering the antithesis: Newton's emission theory of light
and its cosmological implications:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/f9b66444b84d54f2?
NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/a759f562374bb13c?
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF COSMOLOGY

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
Peter Hayes: "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 Popper’s
doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental
results in quantum mechanics and Einstein’s 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."

There are signs that all (relatively) clever Einsteinians have left
the sinking ship. Some are courageous enough to admit it explicitly:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com