SCIENCE LIKE DEMOCRACY

http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...ay/0105012.htm
"Physicist Lee Smolin talks about how the scientific community works:
as he puts it, "we fight and argue as hard as we can," but everyone
accepts that the next generation of scientists will decide who's
right. And, he says, that's how democracy works, too."

That is perfect but who decides who gets the money? Imagine a jury of
clever physicists are shown Lee Smolin's wisdom:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
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...."

Will the jury decide that Smolin should get any money for his
"theories"?

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 5, 4:20*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.exchangemagazine.com/morn...ay/0105012.htm
"Physicist Lee Smolin talks about how the scientific community works:
as he puts it, "we fight and argue as hard as we can," but everyone
accepts that the next generation of scientists will decide who's
right. And, he says, that's how democracy works, too."

That is perfect but who decides who gets the money? Imagine a jury of
clever physicists are shown Lee Smolin's wisdom:

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...."

Will the jury decide that Smolin should get any money for his
"theories"?

Incredible changes in Einsteiniana (no persecution anymore?):

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/ar...01496&allcom=1
"No student shall be penalized in any way because the student may
subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories," the bill
says. If a student were tested on Einstein's special theory of
relativity, but insisted that his position is that energy does not
equal the product of mass and the speed of light squared, the teacher
would have to accept that."

Pentcho Valev

Science like fierce money-making: as soon as Einsteinians realize
Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it used
to be, they radically change allegiance:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...902.4274v1.pdf
Lee Smolin: "Time and symmetry in models of economic markets"

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 4, 11:17*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Science like fierce money-making: as soon as Einsteinians realize
Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it used
to be, they radically change allegiance:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...902.4274v1.pdf
Lee Smolin: "Time and symmetry in models of economic markets"

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Yes, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it
used to be:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...out-relativity
Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
David Albert and Rivka Galchen: "The status of special relativity,
just more than a century after it was presented to the world, is
suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing question. This
situation has come about because physicists and philosophers have
finally followed through on the loose ends of Einstein's long-
neglected argument with quantum mechanics—an irony-laden further proof
of Einstein's genius. The diminished guru may very well have been
wrong just where we thought he was right and right just where we
thought he was wrong. We may, in fact, see the universe through a
glass not quite so darkly as has too long been insisted."

Curiously, Einsteinians are still claiming that special relativity is
based on two postulates. Then, if its status "is suddenly a radically
open and rapidly developing question", perhaps some postulate is under
suspicion? This must be a grand secret between Einsteinians.

Pentcho Valev

On Mar 6, 12:09*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Yes, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it
used to be:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...out-relativity
Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
David Albert and Rivka Galchen: "The status of special relativity,
just more than a century after it was presented to the world, is
suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing question. This
situation has come about because physicists and philosophers have
finally followed through on the loose ends of Einstein's long-
neglected argument with quantum mechanics—an irony-laden further proof
of Einstein's genius. The diminished guru may very well have been
wrong just where we thought he was right and right just where we
thought he was wrong. We may, in fact, see the universe through a
glass not quite so darkly as has too long been insisted."

Curiously, Einsteinians are still claiming that special relativity is
based on two postulates. Then, if its status "is suddenly a radically
open and rapidly developing question", perhaps some postulate is under
suspicion? This must be a grand secret between Einsteinians.

Even Einsteinians in the journal Nature now know that Divine Albert's
Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it used to be:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/458030a.html
NATU "Historians showed that both the 1887 Michelson–Morley
experiment on light travel and Arthur Stanley Eddington's 1919 eclipse
observations, both said to provide key empirical support for
Einstein's theories, were actually open to a variety of
interpretations, even though the textbooks continued to offer myth-
like accounts of the experiments' decisiveness."

Why just "textbooks"? It is Nature's editor and fierce money-maker
Philip Ball who used to offer "myth-like accounts":

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html
Philip Ball: "Arthur Eddington was innocent!"

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 5, 6:20*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Smolin says in his video, that space and time are the foundations of
physics.

That's how Newton approached it, and likewise Einstein, but that's
becoming an outdated perspective.

The new generation will come up thinking the foundation is the
relationship between space, time, and matter.

"Michael Helland" wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 6:20 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Smolin says in his video, that space and time are the foundations of
physics.

That's how Newton approached it, and likewise Einstein, but that's
becoming an outdated perspective.

The new generation will come up thinking the foundation is the
relationship between space, time, and matter.

==============================================
Generations don't come up with anything, individuals do.
Generations do not think at all, they echo and bleat like all
the sheep. One says "baa", they all say "baa".

Crosspost to French groups deleted. No point
in inviting justifiable anger in French.

On Mar 6, 7:06*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Mar 6, 12:09*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Yes, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it
used to be:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...out-relativity
Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity
David Albert and Rivka Galchen: "The status of special relativity,
just more than a century after it was presented to the world, is
suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing question. This
situation has come about because physicists and philosophers have
finally followed through on the loose ends of Einstein's long-
neglected argument with quantum mechanics—an irony-laden further proof
of Einstein's genius. The diminished guru may very well have been
wrong just where we thought he was right and right just where we
thought he was wrong. We may, in fact, see the universe through a
glass not quite so darkly as has too long been insisted."

Curiously, Einsteinians are still claiming that special relativity is
based on two postulates. Then, if its status "is suddenly a radically
open and rapidly developing question", perhaps some postulate is under
suspicion? This must be a grand secret between Einsteinians.

Even Einsteinians in the journal Nature now know that Divine Albert's
Divine Theory is no longer the money-spinner it used to be:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/458030a.html
NATU "Historians showed that both the 1887 Michelson–Morley
experiment on light travel and Arthur Stanley Eddington's 1919 eclipse
observations, both said to provide key empirical support for
Einstein's theories, were actually open to a variety of
interpretations, even though the textbooks continued to offer myth-
like accounts of the experiments' decisiveness."

Why just "textbooks"? It is Nature's editor and fierce money-maker
Philip Ball who used to offer "myth-like accounts":

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html
Philip Ball: "Arthur Eddington was innocent!"

Yet Philip Ball is relatively a money-making dwarf; here is a money-
making GIANT:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5683551.ece
"PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking is to publish a controversial new book
suggesting Albert Einstein’s lifelong search for a “theory of
everything” was probably a mistake....In his new book The Grand
Design, Hawking will suggest that the search for this “unified theory”
is probably futile – a notion that will prove controversial with many
colleagues....One of his previous books, A Brief History of Time,
became an international best-seller, and the new one is also expected
to sell well."

Stephen Hawking's new book will probably sell well because he may have
proved in it that the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the
equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, which is
the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Stephen
Hawking's earlier discovery was that the Michelson-Morley experiment
had confirmed Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

If in his new book Stephen Hawking has really proved that the
Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, which is the antithesis of
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate, the scientific world will be
able to speak of the theory of Hawking-Hoffmann-Norton-Newton (Michell
and Laplace will be forgotten again):

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

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."

Pentcho Valev