What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 7, 12:45 am, PD wrote:
On 9/3/2011 11:38 AM, GSS wrote:
It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

I think this is really what Gehrcke's complaint is. Up until the 20th
century, it was relatively rare to consider concepts that were
remarkably different than what had supported everyday experience. And so
the expectation grew that it would always be this way. Unfortunately,
right around that time is where we made instrumentational inroads to
domains that showed spectacularly different behaviors from the everyday.
This shook things up in a way that made a lot of people uncomfortable.

No, this is wrong interpretation of the situation.

Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.

Now what were the 'instrumentational inroads to domains' that
compelled Einstein to "establish by definition that the 'time'
required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires
to travel from B to A." I think the situation is more akin to the
famous tale of 'Emperor's New Clothes', where whoever opened his mouth
against the prevailing nonsense, gets immediately branded as a fool,
stupid, crank and what not.

Can you justify why such a nonsensical founding assumption of
Relativity has not been put to experimental test for the last more
than hundred years?

If I have suggested a doable experiment to test this very assumption,
why do you think this experiment should not be conducted by the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

GSS

This wasn't the only instance of this, of course. The Copernican
revolution, which indicated that the Earth was not the center of the
universe, upset people for well over a century. Another example was the
notion of heat, which exhibited flow, and so many thought that this
REQUIRED that heat be a fluid substance; the idea of energy as a system
*property* and not a "stuff" of some kind broke all sorts of fundamental
premises under what physics was all about.

What physicists have learned from the Copernican revolution, the
Galilean revolution, the thermodynamic revolution, and then of course
the discovery of the very small, the very large, and the very fast at
the turn of the 20th century, was a very important lesson: do not hope
to challenge fundamental assumptions of a theory based on continuity
with previous conceptual models. That is a fool's errand. Rather, place
your approval FIRST on the agreement with practical experiments, and
then figure out how to embrace the conceptual foundations after.

(c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.

(d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.

(e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
established beliefs and dogmas.

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article om,
says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
whatever.
.
TD is still flushed.

Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a
child?

It sounds like you suffer from the dopler effect.

You don't know what it is , clearly

Since you are a fraud

Nope

and have snipped what you don't like,

Snipped what was not relevant

I will remind you that my example had a point traveling
directly at us i.e. no Doppler, idiot.

BAHAHA .. so you think Doppler effect doesn't happen when things come
directly toward us. Thanks for proving you have no idea what it means. What
a joke you are. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Inertial wrote in message
m
"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article om,
says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
whatever.
.
TD is still flushed.

Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a
child?

It sounds like you suffer from the dopler effect.

You don't know what it is , clearly

Since you are a fraud

Nope

and have snipped what you don't like,

Snipped what was not relevant

I will remind you that my example had a point traveling
directly at us i.e. no Doppler, idiot.

BAHAHA .. so you think Doppler effect doesn't happen when things come
directly toward us. Thanks for proving you have no idea what it means. What
a joke you are. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I hadn't notice that :-)
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...lerIidiot.html

There's probably more to come.

Dirk Vdm

In article om, says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

In article om,
says...

"Byron Forbes" wrote in message
...

But no matter - we simply make it the oscillation of an atom, spring,
whatever.
.
TD is still flushed.

Why do you think relativistic Doppler effect means relativistic time
dilation is wrong .. when both are predicted by SR? You clearly cannot
think .. did you have problems with putting Lego blocks together as a
child?

It sounds like you suffer from the dopler effect.

You don't know what it is , clearly

Since you are a fraud

Nope

and have snipped what you don't like,

Snipped what was not relevant

I will remind you that my example had a point traveling
directly at us i.e. no Doppler, idiot.

BAHAHA .. so you think Doppler effect doesn't happen when things come
directly toward us. Thanks for proving you have no idea what it means. What
a joke you are. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


So what is the relevance of it fool? It's all constant.

You dagos need to get some new tricks.

All the deflection and reputation attacks are pathetic.

On Sep 6, 11:04*pm, GSS wrote:
On Sep 7, 12:45 am, PD wrote:







On 9/3/2011 11:38 AM, GSS wrote:
It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
intellectuals. It points to a serious malady in the body of
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.

(a) Growing *complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.

(b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
depth.

I think this is really what Gehrcke's complaint is. Up until the 20th
century, it was relatively rare to consider concepts that were
remarkably different than what had supported everyday experience. And so
the expectation grew that it would always be this way. Unfortunately,
right around that time is where we made instrumentational inroads to
domains that showed spectacularly different behaviors from the everyday..
This shook things up in a way that made a lot of people uncomfortable.

No, this is wrong interpretation of the situation.

Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "... We have so far
defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'. We have not defined a common
'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we
establish by definition that the 'time' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the 'time' it requires to travel from B to A." This
arbitrary definition of "common time" constitutes a fundamental
departure from the Newtonian notion of absolute time, which has
ultimately obscured the notion of absolute motion.

Now what were the 'instrumentational inroads to domains' that
compelled Einstein to "establish by definition that the 'time'
required by light to travel from A to B equals the 'time' it requires
to travel from B to A." I think the situation is more akin to the
famous tale of 'Emperor's New Clothes', where whoever opened his mouth
against the prevailing nonsense, gets immediately branded as a fool,
stupid, crank and what not.

Can you justify why such a nonsensical founding assumption of
Relativity has not been put to experimental test for the last more
than hundred years?

If I have suggested a doable experiment to test this very assumption,
why do you think this experiment should not be conducted by the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

GSS

The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail. Lose so
much as one card and everything comes falling down. Revising history
is also not an option, especially coming from an outsider like
yourself.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
domains.

Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
domains.

Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
etc...

IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'...

I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...

On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

* How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
* domains.

* Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

* *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* *etc...

IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'...

I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...

If there are no complete theories yet it doesn't even matter.
There is no success in putting undone theories together now is there?

On Sep 10, 1:54*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

* *How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* *etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
* *domains.

* *Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

Your pretentious notions of being an intelligent mainstream status-quo
parrot are noted, though I believe my house parrots (aka Love Birds)
are actually smarter and even a whole lot more trustworthy. At least
my parrots were never mainstream snookered and dumbfounded past the
point of no return, so they can't ever use that as an excuse.

All it takes is for one house card to get pulled, and then it's game
over, because you're all as guilty as any other for not having policed
your own kind.

Do you seriously believe our government and its many agencies (many of
them highly secretive, to the point of not knowing what some of their
own staff have been doing), are incapable of making mistakes or
pulling off any fast one?

Is there even an enforced policy or code of morality in government,
especially when getting reelected and/or job security w/benefits is
really all that matters?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sep 10, 2:07*pm, Aetherist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:54:41 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 9/10/11 3:18 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
The mainstream status-quo house of cards is extremely frail.

* How so? Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* etc., are all extremely fruitful tools of physics in their respective
* domains.

* Seems like the problem, is your lack of science education, Brad.

* *Newtonian Mechanics, Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics,
* *QED, Special and General Relativity, Statistical Mechanics, Optics,
* *etc...

IS! the problem, namely they're not unified under a 'common domain'...

I don't think science really wants a unified theory since actions speak
louder than words...

You also can't pocket nearly as much loot if physics and science get
unified.

If everything got figured out and 100% agreed upon, what would several
million highly compensated individuals have left to do?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”