HOW EINSTEIN'S THEORY "WORKS"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE90CEjmrkU
Neil deGrasse Tyson is asked when and if Einstein's theory of relativity will be fully discredited. Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Ha! It will never be discredited because it works! (...) If Einstein's theory is ever shown to be wrong, it will not be wrong in any regime in which it has already been tested...."

Einstein's special relativity was deduced from the false assumption (based on the conception of light as a continuous field) that the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the emitter). Then in his general relativity Einstein made the speed of light variable again, without abandoning the constant-speed-of-light miracles deduced in special relativity. So Einstein's theory of relativity became an INCONSISTENCY - a malignant neoplasm spreading everywhere, explaining and predicting everything and killing the whole scientific organism in the end:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

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: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Pentcho Valev

The combination special relativity (constant speed of light) plus general relativity (variable speed of light) is an INCONSISTENCY and this explains its enormous, although spurious, explanatory scope. Yet a crucial question remains: How did special relativity work apparently well in the period 1905-1915 if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light is false?

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light, as measured by the observer, varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v). That is, at that time, Newton's emission theory of light was the only existing theory able to explain the null result of the experiment. Then FitzGerald, Lorentz and Einstein performed an ideological (not scientific) revolution by replacing the true assumption (c'=c+v) with a false one: the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c). Acting as ideologues and not as scientists, they also devised a suitable protective belt - "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" - that was to deflect refuting evidence from the false assumption:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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 damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein 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://bertie.ccsu.edu/naturesci/PhilSci/Lakatos.html
"Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its "hard core" which contains its basic assumptions (or axioms, when set out formally and explicitly), and its "protective belt", a surrounding defensive set of "ad hoc" (produced for the occasion) hypotheses. (...) In Lakatos' model, we have to explicitly take into account the "ad hoc hypotheses" which serve as the protective belt. The protective belt serves to deflect "refuting" propositions from the core assumptions..."

http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/abou...ranscript.aspx
Imre Lakatos: "Is, then, Popper's falsifiability criterion the solution to the problem of demarcating science from pseudoscience? No. For Popper's criterion ignores the remarkable tenacity of scientific theories. Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory [merely] because facts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly and if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note that scientists talk about anomalies, [recalcitrant instances,] and not refutations. History of science, of course, is full of accounts of how crucial experiments allegedly killed theories. But all such accounts are fabricated long after the theory has been abandoned. (...) Now, Newton's theory of gravitation, Einstein's relativity theory, quantum mechanics, Marxism, Freudism, are all research programmes, each with a characteristic hard core stubbornly defended, each with its more flexible protective belt and each with its elaborate problem-solving machinery."

Pentcho Valev