🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 2, 2:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The reality of Postscientism is a nightmare for more and more people
> nowadays:
>
> http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=783&...
> How science has crippled our world view
> By Tom Bender, For The Daily Astorian
> "With the atom bomb [in fact, with the 1919 eclipse], Einstein became
> a god, and our sciences froze into unchallengeable dogma that what we
> had stumbled into was the total and absolute truth. We are now paying
> the costs."
>
> 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."
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einsteinians would never give the account of their century-long
> activity that an "enemy" would give:
>
> http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
> postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
> that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
> Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
> farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
>
> Still sometimes accounts produced in Einsteiniana are surprisingly
> similar to Bryan Wallace's one: the catastrophe in physics is often
> described in an equivalent way and only the ultimate cause, Einstein's
> 1905 false light postulate, is more or less camouflaged. It seems
> Einsteiniana's unbearable absurdities are capable of bursting even
> minds that create and teach them, minds totally alien to any
> rationality:
>
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penr...
> "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum
> Mechanics"
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6873094/Large-Hadron-...
> "Former Harvard professor Shahriar Afshar said that failure to find
> the particle would bring current scientific theory tumbling down like
> a house of cards with nothing to replace it. The controversial
> physicist, whose Afshar experiment has already found a loophole in
> quantum theory, said that unless the scienitific community starts
> contemplating a "plan B", failure could lead to "chaos and
> infighting". He said failure will undermine more than a hundred years
> of scientific theory..."
>
> 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."
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-uni...
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
> John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
> the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
> idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
> best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
> passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
> are like and how to detect them.

   Philosophers can't accept the plain simple evidence
   that time doesn't pass, evolution passes. Which is why the
   people who understand it, discovered holographics rather than AI.
   And developed laser disks, rather than digital.
   And built atomic clock wristwatches, rather than satellites.
   And built self-replicating machines, rather than gears.
   And built fiber optics, rather than publishing houses.
   And built HDTV, rather than Lisp.
   And built cyber batteries, rather than yesterday,













Passage exhibits no sign of being an
> illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
> more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
> time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
> and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
> motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
> reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
> spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
> spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
> a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
> found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
> can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
> everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
> stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
> to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
> "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
> would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
> one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
> with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
> happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
> bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
> of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
> rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
> comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
> as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
> We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
> preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
> all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
> stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-...
> Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
> Contemporary Philosophy)
> "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
> original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
> physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
> Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
> paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
> since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
> and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
> relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
> physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
> philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
> publication."
> "UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
> EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
> QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
> Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
> respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
> time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
> effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
> Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
> radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
> invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
> the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
> purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
> Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
> include a global absolute simultaneity among their ...
>
> read more »