PERIMETER INSTITUTE: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...ay/0105012.htm
Lee Smolin: "How does science work? There is no scientific method."

Paul Feyerabend: "There is only one principle that can be defended
under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is
the principle: Anything goes."

Feyerabend again: "Having admitted this much, we must also concede the
possibility of non-argumentative growth in the adult as well as in
(the theoretical parts of) institutions such as science, religion,
prostitution, and so on."

Both Smolin and Feyerabend are correct as far as the era of
Postscientism is concerned. Just an example of how the principle
"Anything goes" works:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...dResize=False#
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

On 18 Jan, 10:51, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Jan 18, 12:51*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...ay/0105012.htm
Lee Smolin: "How does science work? There is no scientific method."

Paul Feyerabend: "There is only one principle that can be defended
under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is
the principle: Anything goes."

Feyerabend again: "Having admitted this much, we must also concede the
possibility of non-argumentative growth in the adult as well as in
(the theoretical parts of) institutions such as science, religion,
prostitution, and so on."

Both Smolin and Feyerabend are correct as far as the era of
Postscientism is concerned. Just an example of how the principle
"Anything goes" works:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...ldResize=False
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Teaching of Smolin's idiocies at the Perimeter Institute:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Per...from_Einstein/
"The idea that mass bends light that travels near it comes from
Einstein's theory of general relativity. In fact, Einstein first
achieved worldwide fame in 1919 because another physicist, Arthur
Eddington, observed light being bent by the Sun, confirming the
existence of this phenomenon.....Furthermore, as gravitational lensing
is a feature of Einstein's theory of general relativity and not
Newton's theory of universal gravitation, it provides evidence for the
presence of dark matter that is independent of evidence from the
orbital speeds of stars within galaxies."

Pentcho Valev

On 18 Jan, 11:14, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.

On Jan 18, 1:14*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Jan 18, 12:51*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...ay/0105012.htm
Lee Smolin: "How does science work? There is no scientific method."

Paul Feyerabend: "There is only one principle that can be defended
under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is
the principle: Anything goes."

Feyerabend again: "Having admitted this much, we must also concede the
possibility of non-argumentative growth in the adult as well as in
(the theoretical parts of) institutions such as science, religion,
prostitution, and so on."

Both Smolin and Feyerabend are correct as far as the era of
Postscientism is concerned. Just an example of how the principle
"Anything goes" works:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...ldResize=False
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Teaching of Smolin's idiocies at the Perimeter Institute:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Per...from_Einstein/
"The idea that mass bends light that travels near it comes from
Einstein's theory of general relativity. In fact, Einstein first
achieved worldwide fame in 1919 because another physicist, Arthur
Eddington, observed light being bent by the Sun, confirming the
existence of this phenomenon.....Furthermore, as gravitational lensing
is a feature of Einstein's theory of general relativity and not
Newton's theory of universal gravitation, it provides evidence for the
presence of dark matter that is independent of evidence from the
orbital speeds of stars within galaxies."

Another example of how the principle "Anything goes" works. Both texts
below are written by Einsteiniana's educators:

http://www.tutorgig.com/ed/Einstein_shift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. The only way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered--- if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911. He considered an accelerating box, and noted that
according to the special theory of relativity, the clock rate at the
bottom of the box was slower than the clock rate at the top."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Pentcho Valev

On 19 Jan, 07:35, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Valev's endlessly repeated material deleted.


What is the record number of consecutive days you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?


What is the record number of consecutive hours you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?


Why has this crusade become an all consuming obsession given that a
single article to a peer reviewed magazine would reach far more
people?

Valev's endlessly repeated material deleted.

What is the record number of consecutive days you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?

What is the record number of consecutive hours you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?

Why has this crusade become an all consuming obsession given that a
single article to a peer reviewed magazine would reach far more
people?

Valev's endlessly repeated material deleted.

What is the record number of consecutive days you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?

What is the record number of consecutive hours you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?

Why has this crusade become an all consuming obsession given that a
single article to a peer reviewed magazine would reach far more
people?

Valev's endlessly repeated material deleted.

What is the record number of consecutive days you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?

What is the record number of consecutive hours you have managed to go
without posting some minor variation of the same old material?

Why has this crusade become an all consuming obsession given that a
single article to a peer reviewed magazine would reach far more
people?

Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted

1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.


2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.


3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.


4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.