🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 5, 7:57 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 1:56 am, Uncle Ben <b...@greenba.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 5, 2:38 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 9:37 pm, Strich 9 <Strich.9.2dd3...@physicsbanter.com> wrote
> > > in sci.physics:
>
> > > > 1905 will be the year marked as the beginning of the Dark Age of
> > > > Cosmology, wherein the Theory of Special Relativity, strung science
> > > > along a path of never ending dead ends, from the quest for Dark Matter
> > > > to Gravitational Waves.  It is a tale of how minor computational errors
> > > > in the observations of the bending of light and the precession of the
> > > > planets led to a never ending vicious cycle of one layer of theoretical
> > > > bureaucracy on top of another.  Any potential contravening opinion is
> > > > sentenced to go through layers upon layers of bewildering claims.  Yet,
> > > > its very foundation was shaky, propped up over the century by an
> > > > illusion of strength and consistency.  Proponents of the science will
> > > > be looked by history as practitioners of pseudoscience and mythology,
> > > > almost like a modern day alchemy.
>
> > > > Current loopholes in Relativity include:
>
> > > > 1) The unresolvable twin paradox.
> > > > 2) The incorrect predictions of precession for the planets.
> > > > 3) The incorrect interpretation of red shift.
> > > > 4) The incorrect interpretation of so-called bending of light.
> > > > 5) The inability to find dark matter, gravitational waves, and other
> > > > relativity spin-offs.
> > > > 6) Intrinsic incompatibility with quantum dynamics.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Strich 9
>
> > > Well said. Bryan Wallace, the Martyr, while dying, still managed to
> > > write this:
>
> > >http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> > > Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
> > > profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
> > > that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
> > > still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
> > > long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
> > > their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
> > > power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
> > > politicians of our time do. So in a sense, I tend to agree with
> > > Weart's argument that the earliest scientists were the prehistoric
> > > shamans, and the argument of Feyerabend that puts science on a par
> > > with religion and prostitution. I also tend to agree with the argument
> > > of Ellis that states that both science and theology have much in
> > > common, and both attempt to model reality on arguments based on
> > > unprovable articles of faith. Using the logic that if it looks like a
> > > duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck:
> > > I support the argument that since there is no significant difference
> > > between science and religion, science should be considered a religion!
> > > I would also agree with Ellis' argument of the obvious methodological
> > > differences between science and the other religions. The other
> > > dominant religions are static because their arguments are based on
> > > rigid doctrines set forth by their founders, such as Buddha, Jesus,
> > > and Muhammad, who have died long ago. Science on the other hand, is a
> > > dynamic religion that was developed by many men over a long period of
> > > time, and it has a flexible doctrine, the scientific method, that
> > > demands that the arguments change to conform to the evolving
> > > observational and experimental evidence. The word science was derived
> > > from the Latin word scientia, which means knowledge, so we see that
> > > the word, in essence, is just another word for knowledge. An associate
> > > of mine, Prof. Richard Rhodes II, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd
> > > College, once told me that students in his graduate school used to
> > > joke that Ph.D. stood for Piled higher and Deeper. If one considers
> > > the vast array of abstract theoretical garbage that dominates modern
> > > physics and astronomy, this appears to be an accurate description of
> > > the degree. Considering the results from Mahoney's field trial that
> > > showed Protestant ministers were two to three times more likely to use
> > > scientific methodology than Ph.D. scientists, it seems reasonable to
> > > consider that they have two to three times more right to be called
> > > scientists then the so-called Ph.D. scientists. I would agree with
> > > Popper's argument that observations are theory-laden, and there is no
> > > way to prove an argument beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt, but at
> > > the very least, the scientist should do more than pay lip service to
> > > the scientific method. The true scientist must have faith and believe
> > > in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories
> > > themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is
> > > something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of
> > > good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant
> > > theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
> > > more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
> > > more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
> > > and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
> > > should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
> > > extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
> > > wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific
> > > prostitutes."
>
> > The difference between science and religion is that science can be
> > tested by experiment and religion cannot.  That is why we have many
> > religions in the world but only one physics.
>
> Einsteiniana can be called "dishonest religion". The fact that
> religions explicitly admit mysticism makes them honest in a sense. The
> conversion of water into wine is officially declared to be a mystical
> event - you may believe or not but no priest would teach the world
> that rational arguments can explain the miracle. However when
> Einsteinians trap a 80m long pole inside a 40m long barn there is no
> mysticism - the miracle is "deduced" etc. Human rationality has been
> irrevesibly destroyed in this way.

Pentcho, if something actually happens in nature -- if it is
experimentally observed -- then it isn't a mystery. It is a fact. The
circumstance that you are surprised by the fact does not make it a
mystery. The circumstance that you cannot understand how that can be
does not make it a mystery.

When scientists confirm that nature really does behave in these odd
and unexpected ways, they learn to *adjust their confined thinking*.
It does no good for a scientist to insist that nature cannot act in
such a way, because it makes no sense, when it obviously does.

PD