|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN VALEV "METHOD"
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
PERIMETER INSTITUTE: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
THERE IS NO SCIENCE IN VALEV "METHOD"
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
PERIMETER INSTITUTE: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
VALEV HAS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Der Kommissar is seductive. Seduction toward groups. The job ofDer Kommissar is to inquire on matter of state and institution on all thosenot group seductive, not crawling around in groups as nobodies around onlyone dominany individual representi
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Seduction of an enemy in a police world, by a UK Kommissar from ablack coat city. Anne's Clar Der Kommissar.
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Sadists create masochists as people in the UK with cameraswatching the street in a military style dictatorship. The phenomena ispsychological and 92 percent of people in the UK who voted against the Iraqwar, that number moved toward 100 percent
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
VALEV TO RETIRE FROM CAMPAIGNING? - Why?
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Will Stephen Hawking move to Perimeter Institute? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 3rd 08 03:57 PM |
PERIMETER INSTITUTE AGAINST DIVINE ALBERT | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | June 30th 08 03:40 AM |
PERIMETER INSTITUTE MAY ALSO REFUTE EINSTEIN | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 5 | September 25th 07 08:26 AM |
That's a fak, Jak!... ingenious scientific method | Painius | Misc | 0 | May 24th 06 01:07 AM |
...The Scientific Method is Based on a False Assumption! | jonathan | Policy | 31 | May 7th 06 08:37 PM |