THE PROBLEM WITH THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY ALLIANCE

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4083874.htm
"A day of scientific inquiry and challenges to such theories as
Einstein's theory of relativity, the Bernoulli Effect, and plate
tectonics are offered for public scrutiny for the first time by the
Natural Philosophy Alliance, a worldwide scientific organization."

http://www.worldnpa.org/main/
"The Natural Philosophy Alliance, quite unlike establishment physics,
does not impose any particular ideas on its members, whose ideas are
so diverse that generalization about them is very difficult. Aside
from virtually unanimous agreement that contemporary cosmology and
physics--especially modern or 20th-century physics--are in dire need
of a thorough overhaul, and that a much more tolerant spirit than has
recently been shown in these fields must be practiced in order to
achieve the needed changes, not very much comes close to achieving
unanimous approval among NPA members. Nevertheless, certain interests
and themes are very widespread, and certain opinions are subscribed to
by a very large majority. The central theme that concerns nearly all
members, both because of its highly honored position in current dogma
and because its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy
to deal with, is special relativity (SR). A very large majority in the
NPA believe it is seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is
totally invalid. I earnestly subscribe to the latter view: SR has no
validity whatsoever." (By NPA Founder, John E. Chappell)

The Natural Philosophy Alliance should adopt a more concrete stance on
special relativity. This theory is strictly deductive so it can only
have "no validity whatsoever" IF A POSTULATE IS FALSE. Ironically,
some Einsteinians are more advanced than NPA members in identifying
the false postulate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html
"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."

Pentcho Valev

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

The fact that some Einsteinians understand deductive science better
than NPA members is indeed unbelievable:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4083874.htm
"A day of scientific inquiry and challenges to such theories as
Einstein's theory of relativity, the Bernoulli Effect, and plate
tectonics are offered for public scrutiny for the first time by the
Natural Philosophy Alliance, a worldwide scientific organization."

http://www.worldnpa.org/main/
"The Natural Philosophy Alliance, quite unlike establishment physics,
does not impose any particular ideas on its members, whose ideas are
so diverse that generalization about them is very difficult. Aside
from virtually unanimous agreement that contemporary cosmology and
physics--especially modern or 20th-century physics--are in dire need
of a thorough overhaul, and that a much more tolerant spirit than has
recently been shown in these fields must be practiced in order to
achieve the needed changes, not very much comes close to achieving
unanimous approval among NPA members. Nevertheless, certain interests
and themes are very widespread, and certain opinions are subscribed to
by a very large majority. The central theme that concerns nearly all
members, both because of its highly honored position in current dogma
and because its rather simple mathematics makes it comparatively easy
to deal with, is special relativity (SR). A very large majority in the
NPA believe it is seriously flawed, and a clear majority believe it is
totally invalid. I earnestly subscribe to the latter view: SR has no
validity whatsoever." (By NPA Founder, John E. Chappell)

The Natural Philosophy Alliance should adopt a more concrete stance on
special relativity. This theory is strictly deductive so it can only
have "no validity whatsoever" IF A POSTULATE IS FALSE. Ironically,
some Einsteinians are more advanced than NPA members in identifying
the false postulate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html
"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."

Pentcho Valev