www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/080616
"Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of "Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with nothing behind them. Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (...) The science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks, they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry, and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats' famous poetic summation: "Beauty is truth and truth, beauty."
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but "no longer getting the kind of support it needs"):
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director: "Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our available products."
Selling beautiful dead science:
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mourning:
plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html
John Barrow: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to themit impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."
www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
"PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE? In CEER's latest report, published 11 August 2006 and funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Professor Alan Smithers and Dr Pamela Robinson show that the decline in physics as student numbers fall and university departments shut is more serious than is generally appreciated."
www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ingdahl2.html
"But there has been a marked global decrease of students willing to study physics, and funding has decreased accordingly. Not only that, the best students are not heading for studies in physics, finding other fields more appealing, and science teachers to schools are getting scarcer in supply. In fact, warning voices are being heard about the spread of a "scientific illiteracy" where many living in technologically advanced societies lack the knowledge and the ability for critical thinking in order to function in their daily environment."
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/27/science-easier-exams
"Pupils of today struggle with science questions of the 60s. Evidence shows standards are slipping as comparison is made of exam papers through the decades. There has been a "catastrophic slippage" in standards of science taught in schools, leaving children with a superficial understanding of chemistry, biology and physics, according to the Royal Society of Chemistry."
www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/may/22/h...reducation.education
Harry Kroto: "The wrecking of British science....The scientific method is based on what I prefer to call the inquiring mindset. It includes all areas of human thoughtful activity that categorically eschew "belief", the enemy of rationality. This mindset is a nebulous mixture of doubt, questioning, observation, experiment and, above all, curiosity, which small children possess in spades. I would argue that it is the most important, intrinsically human quality we possess, and it is responsible for the creation of the modern, enlightened portion of the world that some of us are fortunate to inhabit. Curiously, for the majority of our youth, the educational system magically causes this capacity to disappear by adolescence.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure."
www.thenation.com/doc/20090316/deresiewicz?rel=hp_picks
"The most striking thing about the way we talk about science these days is just how little we talk about it at all. No large fundamental question focuses our attention on the adventure of discovery; no grand public project stirs our reflection on the perils of technological control. Nothing for decades has approached the imaginative impact of relativity or the double helix, the moon landing or the bomb."
mneaquitaine.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/lo...tions-scientifiques/
"L'Occident face à la crise des vocations scientifiques. Le mal s'accroît, mais le diagnostic s'affine. Les pays développés, qui souffrent, sans exception, d'une désaffection des jeunes pour les filières scientifiques, pointent du doigt la façon dont les sciences sont aujourd'hui enseignées. Trop de théorie, pas assez de pratique ; des enseignements qui n'invitent pas au questionnement......tandis que les sciences physiques, grandes victimes de ce rejet collectif des jeunes Européens, dégringolent (- 5,5 %)."
archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2004/LesEchos/19077-80-ECH.htm
"Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux ». (...) Cette perception d'une « science mortifère » se double d'une « culture du ressenti », sorte de sésame passe-partout utilisé pour justifier l'acquisition, l'évaluation ou le rejet des connaissances. « J'ai eu à faire récemment à un jeune étudiant en sciences qui n'était pas d'accord avec la théorie de la relativité d'Einstein pour une raison étonnante : il m'a dit qu'il ne la sentait pas », indique-t-il en riant à moitié. Au bout du compte, ce soupçon d'imposture permanente débouche sur une idée simple qui fait des ravages : « En sciences comme ailleurs, tout est relatif. » Dans ce contexte, la vulgarisation est d'un maigre secours car « la pédagogie ajoute du bruit et augmente la confusion »."
The Pound-Rebka experiment showed that the frequency F varies with the gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation:
F'=F(1+V/c^2)
This means that, in accordance with the formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
either the speed of light c varies:
c'=c(1+V/c^2) (Einstein's 1911 equation given by Newton's emission theory of light)
or the wavelength L varies:
L'=L/(1+V/c^2) (an equation which on close inspection can only be characterized as idiotic)
Since theoretical physics is dead, Einsteinians can safely say "The wavelength varies because Divine Albert said so" although Einstein has claimed all along that it is the speed of light that varies:
The lie:
focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency AND WAVELENGTH. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example, shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of some energy. But the effect is tiny in earth's modest gravity. In 1960 Robert Pound and Glen Rebka of Harvard University finally succeed in testing this crucial prediction, and they reported their results in PRL. Today the so-called gravitational redshift is essential for understanding the cosmos and operating the Global Positioning System (GPS)."
The truth:
www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR."
As for the glorious "GR has passed test after test after test", it should be replaced by the less glorious "Einsteinians have fudged test after test after test":
www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."
www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck ["sheere luck" is a euphemism for "sheer fraud"], or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."
discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-...now-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."
www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."
alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/20...ein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."
astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."
astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington."
www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-...euves-taient-fausses
RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/...ves-de-la-relativite
"Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)
The truth: Maxwell's theory says the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the emitter but does depend on the speed of the observer:
www.solidarity-us.org/node/58
"Maxwell's theory of electricity and magnetism provides a successful framework with which to study light. In this theory light is an electromagnetic wave. Using Maxwell's equations one can compute the speed of light. One finds that the speed of light is 300,000,000 meters (186,000 miles) per second. The question arises: which inertial observer is this speed of light relative to? As in the previous paragraph, two inertial observers traveling relative to each other should observe DIFFERENT SPEEDS FOR THE SAME LIGHT WAVE."
www.futura-sciences.com/fr/doc/t/physiqu...temps_509/c3/221/p5/
"Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage avec une vitesse différente..."
www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein's second postulate, the light postulate, asserts that "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." Einstein gave no justification for this postulate in the introduction to his paper. Its strongest justification came from Maxwell's electrodynamics. That theory had identified light with waves propagating in an electromagnetic field and concluded that just one speed was possible for them in empty space, c = 300,000 km/sec, no matter what the motion of the emitter."
The lie (always one leap ahead of the truth): Maxwell's theory says the speed of light is absolute and does not depend on the speed of the observer:
www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm
Relativity Tutorial: "But 200 years after Newton the theory of electromagnetism was developed into Maxwell's equations. These equations describe waves with a speed of 1/sqrt(epsilon_o*mu_o), where epsilon_o is the constant describing the strength of the electrostatic force in a vacuum, and mu_o is the constant describing the strength of the magnetic interaction in a vacuum. This is an absolute velocity -- it is not relative to anything."
sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again, this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."
www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
www.math.mcgill.ca/lseguin/physique.php
"Donc, Maxwell se demanda: "Mais pourquoi donc mes paramètres correspondent-ils à la vitesse de la lumière ?" Et il fit des calculs palpitants pendant longtemps. Après des heures de plaisir, il trouva que ses équations prédisaient une vitesse c pour les ondes électromagnétiques (la lumière par exemple) et que cette vitesse c était une constante, peut importe le référentiel. Donc, peut importe qui mesure la vitesse de la lumière, ça sera toujours c."
www.techno-science.net/?onglet=glossaire&definition=1711
"D'après les théories de la physique moderne, et notamment les équations de Maxwell, la lumière visible et toutes les ondes électromagnétiques ont une vitesse constante dans le vide, la vitesse de la lumière. On la considère donc comme une constante physique notée c (du latin celeritas, « vitesse »). Mais elle n'est pas seulement constante (pense-t-on) en tous les endroits (et à tous les âges) de l'univers (principes cosmologiques faible et fort, respectivement) ; elle l'est également d'un repère inertiel à un autre (principe d'équivalence restreint). En d'autres termes : quel que soit le repère inertiel de référence d'un observateur ou la vitesse de l'objet émettant la lumière, tout observateur obtiendra la même mesure."
Definition of doublethink:
www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
