THE END OF SCIENCE

In 1850 Clausius DEDUCED the second law of thermodynamics from the
assumption that heat "always shows a tendency to equalize temperature
differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies":

http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme", 1850, Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must
be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears
that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it
depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the
temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the
nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If
we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can
produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of
heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat
from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two
substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above
process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their
original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly
counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle,
the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. The
only change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more
heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the
whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two
processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of
force or any other change, to transfer as much heat as we please from
a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other
relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies."

Was there anything wrong with Clausius' argument? A couple of decades
earlier Sadi Carnot had deduced, VALIDLY, the SAME conclusion from a
FALSE assumption. So we have:

Carnot: false assumption, valid argument - the second law

Clausius: true assumption, (in)valid? argument - the second law

Let us consider a few scenarios. First, a dissident discovers and even
proves that Clausius' argument is invalid, and informs the scientific
community. What would change? Nothing. Second, a mainstreamer
discovers and even proves that Clausius' argument is invalid, and
informs the scientific community. What would change? Nothing. Third, a
large group of mainstreamers discovers and even proves that Clausius'
argument is invalid, and informs the scientific community. What would
change? Nothing. Fourth, the scientific community somehow gets
convinced that Clausius' argument is invalid. What would change?
Nothing. Dead science is dead science.

Pentcho Valev

The ever growing corpse of thermodynamics:

http://www.phys.uu.nl/~wwwgrnsl/jos/.../AgingTime.pdf
Jos Uffink 2010: "Another main theme in discussions on the arrow of
time is irreversibility. A process is called irreversible if it cannot
be fully undone. Once it has taken place, the original state cannot be
completely restored, even with the help of the most sophisticated
auxiliary apparatus imaginable. Examples of such processes are
erosion, corruption, decay, and of course, aging. Planck famously
argued that all processes in the real world are irreversible. He also
claimed that this was a consequence of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. It is not a trivial matter to state what the Second
Law of Thermodynamics actually says (cf. Uffink, 2001). There are, as
Bridgman (1961) conservatively estimated, as many formulations as
there have been discussions of it! A relatively safe formulation is
the statement that according to thermodynamics, all systems in an
equilibrium state are characterized by a quantity called entropy, and
that in all transitions that a system can go through during adiabatic
isolation, ending in another equilibrium state, this quantity can
never decrease. However, the confusion surrounding the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is not confined to classical thermodynamics, the theory
developed by Clausius, Kelvin, Gibbs, and Planck. During the twentieth
century, many modifications of the theory have been proposed, in order
to make it applicable to more general types of systems and situations.
This has resulted in a plethora of theories, calling themselves
"generalized" thermodynamics, "extended" or "rational" thermodynamics,
thermodynamics of irreversible processes, nonequilibrium
thermodynamics, continuum thermodynamics, etc. On some occasions, the
same name is even claimed by rather different theories."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...orycode=413636
The End of Discovery: Are We Approaching the Boundaries of the
Knowable?
Simon Mitton: "In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge in 1980, the
recently elected Lucasian professor of mathematics, Stephen Hawking,
posed the question: "Is the end in sight for theoretical physics?"
Outstanding physicists have fretted over this issue for more than a
century. The claim that Lord Kelvin warned of the imminent death of
physics at the British Association meeting in 1900 is much quoted even
today, despite its being apocryphal. Many physicists and science
writers have contributed to a voluminous literature on the future of
physics. Russell Stannard, a former head of physics at The Open
University, has added to the corpus. As a former high-energy physicist
and an accomplished author of books on relativity aimed at children,
he is well placed to write a non-technical account of the present
state and uncertain future of theoretical physics. The continuing
dilemma in the academy can be stated succinctly. An intractable puzzle
is embedded in general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two
revolutionary (and highly productive) ideas of the 20th century. The
conundrum arises because relativity is a classical theory that is our
best description of the Universe, whereas quantum theory applies in
the subatomic world. As Stannard points out, both theories have
withstood every test in their respected domains, and yet they are
mutually incompatible."

Tests general relativity has "withstood":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
science."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes
indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew
Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre
conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de
Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au
regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20
cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm
à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à
transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples
miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La
stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques
photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un
maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques
témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus
tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques,
avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité
et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non
négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au
bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-
millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"),
correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie
observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent
contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les
variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs...
Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier
moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages !
Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on
distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre,
Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques
témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec
plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de
secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses
plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre.
Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler,
décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues
avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour
d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31"
et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa
méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre
expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant
une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a
mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue.
S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson,
directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich.
On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a
le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le
tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la
Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste
les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de
0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs
accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids
est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion
catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de
doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et
qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité
généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement
été escamotées."

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN
KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS'
MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY
A FACTOR OF FOUR."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on
découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très
faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut
supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite
qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à
cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles
caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur
gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation
est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée
pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse
aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson,
en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker
entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une
température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même,
le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20
km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le
grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la
mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il
mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de
corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique,
le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s,
et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés
comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test
de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat,
pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance
effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était
largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington,
l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup
plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge
mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné
d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude
a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 3, 1:41*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/
"However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been
sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of
chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of
fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as
absurd as those of any religious cult."

http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~mike/Trouble.doc
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the
bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives.
They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They
have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking
over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and
rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so
much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living
spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the
old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something
perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds.
This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and
examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is
optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. (...) Developing ideas
and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a
certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal
freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the
people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a
product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not
survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure,
China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it
either."

http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/...ooks/x16163192...
Hilton Ratcliffe: "Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-
mathematics, and physics departments at major universities with grand
histories in physical science are closing down for lack of interest.
It is a crisis in my view. (...) If, as in the case of GTR and later
with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have
seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively,
had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit
understood, becomes the darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory
are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any
sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify
nonsense."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20.../22/schools.g2
"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report
showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at
school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the
past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over
the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics
teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of
physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to
only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain
was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and
Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum
physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now
facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as
pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/433218a.html
John Barrow: "EINSTEIN RESTORED FAITH IN THE UNINTELLIGIBILITY OF
SCIENCE. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in
1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what
it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921,
he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the
ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and
yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I
think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it
is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses
them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity
was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist
notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature
too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and
standards. ALL THINGS WERE BEING MADE NEW. EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
SUITED THE MOOD. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian
motion or his photoelectric effect but RELATIVITY PROMISED TO TURN THE
WORLD INSIDE OUT."

http://io9.com/5607692/are-physicist...up-dark-energy
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University:
"The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question
is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your
concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no
choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you
have to get rid of relativity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

But, the difference between the modern theory of DNA
and Aristotle's theory of DNA, is that Arisotle's
theory was infinitely wrong.

The difference between the modern theory of radioactivity
and Galileo's theory, is that Galileo's is ramp scewed
by the media.

And the difference between modern computers, and
Newton's computers, is that modern computers are
not only digital, they have 1000 GHz more laser
bandwith that Newton's did.




http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

http://www.dogma.lu/txt/EK-ScienceQuiestion.htm
Etienne Klein: "Votre science dit-elle réellement le vrai ? Comment
osez-vous prétendre qu'elle se réfère à la rationalité alors que les
jugements esthétiques, les préjugés métaphysiques et autres désirs
subjectifs imprégnent sinon sa démarche tout entière, du moins
certaines de ses phases ? Votre légitimité incontestée est-elle fondée
sur autre chose que des effets de pouvoir ? Les mythes, que vous
méprisez, ne disent-ils pas eux aussi une part de la vérité ? Le
relativisme bénéficie, sous toutes ses formes, d'une sympathie
intellectuelle quasi-spontanée. Pourquoi séduit-il tant ceux qui
s'interrogent sur la portée des discours de la science ? Sans doute
parce que, abusivement interprété comme une remise en cause des
prétentions de cette dernière, il semble nourrir un soupçon qui se
généralise, celui de l'imposture : « Finalement, (là comme ailleurs)
tout est relatif. » (...) Comment inciter ceux qui ne connaissent pas
la science à vouloir la connaître ? Comment convertir le droit de
savoir, légitime mais gratuit en termes d'effort, en désir de
connaître, qui, lui, demande un engagement chronophage et un véritable
travail personnel ? Et comment inciter les moins intéressés d'entre
nous à se tourner vers les scientifiques pour les questionner : " Que
faites-vous au juste ? Que savez-vous exactement ? En quoi ce que vous
proposez est-il pertinent pour nous ? " Réciproquement, comment
obliger les experts à ne plus s'en tenir à leurs seules propres
raisons et à écouter celles des autres ?"

http://www.i-sem.net/press/jmll_isem_palermo.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "La science souffre d'une forte perte de
crédit, au sens propre comme au sens figuré : son soutien politique et
économique, comme sa réputation intellectuelle et culturelle
connaissent une crise grave. (...) Mais le plus grave peut-être dans
la déculturation de la science se situe à l'extérieur de la recherche
scientifique, à l'interface entre le milieu scientifique proprement
dit et la société au sens large."

http://www.archipope.net/article-12278372-6.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde..
Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a
connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond,
physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections
scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives...077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des
relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la
société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens
dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples
centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les
relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas
optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit
tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux »."

http://www.inra.fr/dpenv/pdf/LevyLeblondC56.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il est peut-être trop tard. Rien ne prouve,
je le dis avec quelque gravité, que nous soyons capables d'opérer
aujourd'hui ces nécessaires mutations. L'histoire, précisément, nous
montre que, dans l'histoire des civilisations, les grands épisodes
scientifiques sont terminés... (...) Rien ne garantit donc que dans
les siècles à venir, notre civilisation, désormais mondiale, continue
à garder à la science en tant que telle la place qu'elle a eue pendant
quelques siècles."

EXISTENTIAL QUESTION: Would science have survived if Einstein had not
"resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether"?

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more

read more »...

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. 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 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."

Imagine that John Norton had added, quite correctly, more information
about "the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more":

"It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its
passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue
that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not
appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time
is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact
that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder,
could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think
that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the
peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is
just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading
modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and
many more BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY AND THE PRINCIPLE OF
CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT, 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 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."

The situation is elementary: an unacceptable consequence ("the passage
of time is an illusion") has been deduced from two axioms so at least
one of the axioms must be false. Would the scientific community start
looking for the false axiom? It wouldn't. Of all the theoreticians all
over the world not one could think of a reason why the false axiom
should be looked for. Dead science is dead science.

Pentcho Valev

Symptoms of dead science:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/lectur.../Tsinghua.html
John Norton: "The first is Einstein's famous "chasing a light beam"
thought experiment that provided his first step towards the special
theory of relativity. If read as presented, the thought experiment it
obscure. It is unclear just how Einstein arrives at the various
outcomes claimed. A small minority of later authors have admitted its
unintelligibility. Most, however, do not. They pretend that they
understand it, with the unfortunate consequence that hapless readers
are left doubly baffled by their failure to follow Einstein's account
and that of the commentator as well!"

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the
Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of
relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support
for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Lie and obscurity "almost universally" taught for a century and now...
no reaction at all? Just John Norton making some money at Tsinghua
University? Science couldn't be more dead.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999)
LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele
"The Pole in the Barn Paradox. Now we know about length contraction,
we can invent some amusing uses of it. Suppose you want to fit a 20m
pole into a 10m barn. If the pole were moving fast enough, then length
contraction means it would be short enough. (...) Now comes the
paradox. According to your friend who is going to slam the barn doors
shut just as the end of the pole goes in, the pole is 10m long, and
therefore it fits. However as far as you are concerned, the pole is
still 20m long but the barn is now only 5m long: length contraction
must work both ways by the first postulate. How can you fit this 20m
pole into a 5m barn? This paradox is apparently due to Wolfgang
Rindler of the University of Texas at Dallas. Of course the key to
this is relativity of simultaneity. Your friend sees the front end of
the pole hit the back wall of the barn at the same time as the doors
are closed, but you (and the pole) do not see things this way. You are
standing still and see a 5m long barn coming towards you at some
shockingly high speed. When the back of the barn hits the front of the
pole (and takes the front of the pole with it), the back end of the
pole must still be at rest. It cannot 'know' about the crash at the
front, because the shock wave travelling along the pole “telling it”
about the crash travels at some finite speed. The front of the barn
has only 15m to go to get to the back of the pole, but the shock wave
has to travel the whole length of the pole, namely 20m. The speed of
the barn is such that even if this shock wave travelled at the speed
of light, it would not get to the back of the pole before the front of
the barn did. Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside
the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

Note that John Steele has no problem with the 20m pole remaining,
eventually, trapped inside the 10m barn. And of all the scientists all
over the world not one could think of a reason why there should be any
problem with the dwindled pole. Science coldn't be more dead.

Pentcho Valev

Science may be dead but pseudoscience is not. As soon as some idiocy
compromises itself, another is born:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2392094,00.asp
"New data from Europe's Large Hadron Collider may signal the end of
one of the most popular theories in physics, superstring theory. If
the conclusions are true, scientists would need a new leading
candidate for the "theory of everything." (...) Experiments will
continue, of course, but this could be the beginning of the end for
superstring theory. There's no shortage of alternative grand theories
for mixing quantum mechanics and relativity, however, and superstring
theory's downfall could lead to many new theories being proposed."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ase-space.html
"But did Einstein's revolution go far enough? Physicist Lee Smolin at
the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, doesn't think so. He and a trio of colleagues are aiming to
take relativity to a whole new level, and they have space-time in
their sights. They say we need to forget about the home Einstein
invented for us: we live instead in a place called phase space. (...)
What they discovered is shocking: observers living in a curved
momentum space will no longer agree on measurements made in a unified
space-time. That goes entirely against the grain of Einstein's
relativity. He had shown that while space and time were relative,
space-time was the same for everyone. For observers in a curved
momentum space, however, even space-time is relative. (...) According
to Smolin, relative locality saves the day. Let's say you were patient
enough to wait around while a black hole evaporated, a process that
could take billions of years. Once it had vanished, you could ask what
happened to, say, an elephant that once succumbed to its gravitational
grip. But as you look back to the time at which you thought the
elephant had fallen in, you would find that locations in space-time
had grown so fuzzy and uncertain that there would be no way to tell
whether the elephant actually fell into the black hole or narrowly
missed it. The information-loss paradox dissolves. (...) Smolin and
colleagues' model does not yet include gravity, but once it does,
Majid says, observers will not agree on measurements in momentum space
either. So if both space-time and momentum space are relative, where
does objective reality lie? What is the true fabric of reality?
Smolin's hunch is that we will find ourselves in a place where space-
time and momentum space meet: an eight-dimensional phase space that
represents all possible values of position, time, energy and momentum.
In relativity, what one observer views as space, another views as time
and vice versa, because ultimately they are two sides of a single coin
- a unified space-time. Likewise, in Smolin's picture of quantum
gravity, what one observer sees as space-time another sees as momentum
space..."

Pentcho Valev

On Jul 9, 1:53*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Scientists somehow feel that the Augean task of removing Einstein's
1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate and all its absurd
consequences is unaccomplishable (Einstein: "Nothing will remain of my
whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of contemporary physics"; Wallace: "Shatter this
postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"). In a
sense scientists are right in claiming that the human brain is
incapable of replacing the dead corpse of science with some "new
physics":

What saves science, is that many scientists still can't understand
that Einstein was ranting about field theory, rather than space
time, mass, light, logic, chemistry, or rockets. So the people
with actual science ability are still working on 21st Century,
rather than continuations of Maxwell.




http://www.france-info.com/chronique...1-07-08-les-li...
"Marc Lachièze-Rey est directeur de recherche au CNRS, au Laboratoire
"Astroparticules et cosmologie" de l'Université Pars7-Denis Diderot :
La physique d'aujourd'hui se fonde à la fois sur la physique quantique
et sur la relativité générale, nous dit-il. Véritables systèmes de
pensée, ces deux théories suggèrent deux manières différentes de voir
le monde. Si notre physique ne convient pas, il faut en construire une
nouvelle. Des hypothèses audacieuses sous-tendent de nouvelles
théories : supersymétrie, cordes et supercordes, gravité et cosmologie
quantiques, géométrie non commutative…, qui renouvellent les
conceptions mêmes de l'espace et du temps, de la matière et de
l'univers. Mais peut-être faut-il tout simplement admettre que nous ne
disposons pas d'un cerveau suffisamment développé, capable d'accéder à
une nouvelle physique ? Vous pourrez écouter Marc Lachièze-Rey en duo
avec son collègue et ami, Etienne Klein dans le cadre des rencontres
"Sciences et humanisme" au Lazaret Ollandini à Ajaccio qui se
dérouleront du 19 au 23 Juillet 2011"

Pentcho Valev