On Aug 5, 7:57*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Aug 6, 1:56*am, Uncle Ben wrote:



On Aug 5, 2:38*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Aug 4, 9:37*pm, Strich 9 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