🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 30, 11:07 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> False heroes discuss (rather, extract career and money from) dying
> science:
>
> http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
> Lee Smolin: "A Crisis in Fundamental Physics....Then, about 30 years
> ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance
> in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe
> theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The
> last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any
> support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe
> called inflation, which was proposed in 1981.....I should emphasize
> that this crisis involves only fundamental physics—that part of
> physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."
>
> The world does not care about dying science, but even if it did, there
> would be no-one to correctly analyse the situation (science
> journalists can only practice sycophancy and worship false heroes):
>
> http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/03/science-journalism-in-decline.html
> "Science Journalism in Decline....Over the past decade it has been the
> "professional" science journalists themselves who were the gullible
> victims of scientific hype and PR. The scientific accuracy of press
> releases leaves a great deal to be desired. They are, after all,
> intended to promote the researcher and the institution. They are
> heavily biased....If science journalists really did their job of
> separating the wheat from the chaff then I would be their biggest
> cheerleader. Instead, for the most part they have been completely
> seduced by the lure of scientific breakthroughs and revolutions
> promoted by self-serving scientists and their institutions. There are
> notable exceptions, but the majority of science journalists have
> failed at the one job they are supposed to do better than non-science
> journalists. That's why we would be better off without them."

A typical journalist-sycophant, John Farrell, who used to sing
dithyrambs but is now more than silent about Divine Albert's Divine
Theory:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1162/was-einstein-a-fake
Was Einstein a fake? by John Farrell
Issue 11 of Cosmos, October 2006
"There's nothing quite like Einstein and his theories of relativity to
bring out the doubters, the cranks and the outright crackpots. Do they
have a point? Was Einstein a fake?"

There is a nice recent reply to Farrell's sycophancy:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1162/was-einstein-a-fake?page=2
"May the Temple of Relativity collapse! The GR & SR theories are the
modern day equivalents of Earth-centric theories of the past. The
level of academic censorship surrounding them is proof enough of their
inconsistencies. Listening to a modern-day mainstream theoretical
physicist is like listening to the rant of a meth-head at 3:00 AM on
Friday night.
One thing that is universal for SR & GR is that whenever a finding is
discovered that in anyway contradicts the establishment, it is claimed
to be due to some unknown phenomenon, usually to be named "dark
something". Under no circumstances can it be due to something wrong
with GR or SR itself. My biggest problem with Relativity is that it is
now shoved into our faces from kindergarten through graduate school as
an absolute, when the only absolute thing about relativity is the
number of holes in it. May GR & SR die swiftly, so that real science
can move forward. :) P.S. My wife and I were watching the Science
Channel yesterday when a show about Relativity came on with host Dr.
Michio Kaku. After listening to him explain GR & SR for about 10
minutes, my wife turned to me and asked, "Is he on drugs or
something?". I wish some of these "theoretical physicists" could hear
themselves speak, they sound like crazy people." Submitted by Visitor
on 4 March 2009 - 4:11pm.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com