www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/9755...7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "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."

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein has stopped short is:

"My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."

The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

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."

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_o...Essence_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while writing it.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho,
Please stop spamming us with cross-posts. They go against the rules of the forum. We prefer having conversations to reading manifestoes.

I agree Fence. Pentcho should stop posting the same thing again and again and again and again(!) without contributing anything to the community! -Pentcho had never establish any real conversation with anyone here at all~! (yet he posting and posting and posting)

I think that's a serious misuse of the forum function.

That physics (and science in general) is in "terminal decline" is a well established fact and the Cambridge professor John Barrow

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow

would refer you to one of the reasons, that is, Barrow would tell you that "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science" (by procrusteanizing scientific rationality into conformity with the idiotic consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate):

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 »."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
That physics (and science in general) is in "terminal decline" is a well established fact and the Cambridge professor John Barrow

I disagree. Science is totally alive and well. Yesterday I read about cryogenic electron emission phenomenon, last week I read about GPS jammer, last month I read about the rate of mutation passed on from parent to their child (75 mutations on one hotspot in a chromosome), and a whole lot more!

You're quoting from people who are totally depressed with their own achievement. Other people in general, discover many many many things everyday, and you've failed to see it. What you want is; as an academic, you want success... when you failed, you believe science is not a new frontier anymore and it is stale, but it is NOT!
_

I would like to say this: If you're wasting time with Einstein and people who are depressed with life, then you're wasting your soooo precious life. It made your life soo soooo boring, same ol same person, never to evolve... There's soo many things happening out there; building of Fusion reactor, building of this, building of that, Google, new billionaire, economic update, world update, new idea, new discovery, new movies, science, sociology, chaos, technology, people, places... it just going on and on, it made your complain seems... ignorant.

Please agree...

John Norton exercising himself in crimestop:

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "There are occasions in which our best science requires us to dismiss some fact of experience as an illusion. All our ordinary experience of water and air is that they are perfectly continuous fluids. Yet our best science tells us that is an illusion. On a sufficiently fine scale both have the granularity of molecules. The appearance of continuity is an illusion. But it is one that is readily explicable by the extremely small size of atoms. Again, light appears to us to propagate instantaneously in ordinary experience. Yet it is essential for relativity theory that it have a finite speed of propagation. So we dismiss the appearance of instantaneous propagation as an illusion. Once again, it is readily explicable by the extremely short propagation times needed, which are well below those we can discern in ordinary processes. Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Norton has stopped short is:

"Passage of time is an illusion" is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/9755...7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "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."

Suggestion: The dangerous thought at the threshold of which Einstein has stopped short is:

"My 1905 false light postulate has killed contemporary physics. The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light."

The following quotations speak in favour of the above suggestion:

www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

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."

en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_o...Essence_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object."

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived. There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted....If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT INADMISSIBLE."

www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!....The speed of light is c+v."

Einsteinians who would relish finding imperfections in Bryan Wallace's book "The Farce of Physics" should know that Wallace was dying while writing it.