EINSTEIN DEMOLISHED SCIENCE - NOW A SECOND DEMOLISHING?

http://www.cambridge.org/about-us/me...-reality-time/
"Einstein and others demolished the view that space and time are an unchanging background to physical events. (...) The time has come for a second demolishing."

How did Einstein demolish space and time? By introducing his false constant-speed-of-light postulate of course:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

Roberto Mangabeira Unger and Lee Smolin, don't demolish science further (there is not much left of it). Just denounce Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/op...-big-year.html
Philip Ball: "Stranger still is that, though general relativity is celebrated and revered among physicists like no other theory in science, they would doubtless react with joy if it is proved to fail."

Hmm, not really. Physicists will have to answer an "embarrassing question":

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=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

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...nal-wave-claim
"For the past 35 years, theoretical physics has been an extravaganza of model-building," says Turok, adding that theories have "sort of run amok."

That is, an extravaganza of silly walks, all of them generated by Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZlBUglE6Hc
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence!"

Pentcho Valev

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7552
"...a big problem for me is that here Smolin is not taking a provocative minority point of view, but just reinforcing the strong recent intellectual trend amongst the majority of physicists that the "trouble with physics" is too much mathematics. As I've often pointed out, the failures of recent theoretical physics are failures of a wrong physical idea, rather than due to too much mathematics..."

Correct. And the wrong physical idea is... Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate of course:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative." (...) "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Pentcho Valev