Revolutions in science in Kuhnian sense occur only when a consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting one. Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything within its scope in the 18th century so at the end of the 19th century it seemed so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it as they were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in 1887, prior to introducing length contraction, the ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis, the emission theory was the only one able to explain the result of the experiment). In other words, a pre-revolutionary situation in science is characterized by unbearable boredom, not by an unbearably large set of anomalies as Kuhn teaches. Initially the inconsistency (Einstein's relativity) cures the boredom but eventually comes to a dead end and science simply dies. Then even epitaph-like texts are unable to provoke any discussion, let alone revolution:

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433218a.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." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. ALL THINGS WERE BEING MADE NEW. EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY SUITED THE MOOD. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but RELATIVITY PROMISED TO TURN THE WORLD INSIDE OUT."

www.monkmedia.net/mm_pdf_links/Sciences_new.pdf
Lee Smolin: "Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was proposed in 1981....A growing number of theoretical physicists, myself among them, see the present situation as a crisis that requires us to reexamine the assumptions behind our so-far unsuccessful theories. I should emphasize that this crisis involves only fundamental physics that part of physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."

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."

allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm
Maurice Allais: "De là a résulté une incroyable situation sans aucun précédent dans toute l'histoire : la domination dogmatique et intolérante pendant un siècle d'une théorie fausse, la Théorie de la Relativité, résultant elle-même du plagiat indiscutable d'une incontestable erreur. Les conséquences néfastes qui en ont résulté pour la science ont été incalculables, l'orientation totale pendant un siècle de la science dans une voie erronée, et une régression de la pensée scientifique qui n 'a cessé de constituer un obstacle insurmontable sur la voie du progrès."

www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox
Peter Hayes: "The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naïve to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them."

www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-R...osophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Gatekeepers have always known that "the elementary inconsistencies of relativity" are all consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate but from time to time they fear that believers may suddenly stop singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and notice the obvious falsehood of the light postulate. In such cases gatekeepers teach, and believers should learn by rote, that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is superfluous, that is, even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", Einstein's special relativity "would be unaffected":

o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la condition de l'exploiter à fond."

www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...) The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801....bout-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum, both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths - one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous."

henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryMinkowski.pdf
"In September of 1905 Einstein published a development from relativity - the discovery of the implication that E = mc2, and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! I do not know if it is true, but I recall being told that during the Middle Ages undergraduates learned to multiply and divide using Roman numerals, while the exotic Arabic numerals were reserved for the more advanced students. That is exactly what we do today in teaching special relativity. Antique postulates that are not of anything but historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to students as "Special Relativity." Some books do better than others in warning students how seemingly impossible the second postulate is; but all have the students working out true but unintuitive consequences (e.g. relativity of simultaneity) using thought experiments with of course the second postulate producing the bizarre result. A small number of texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein's second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs to be done, which is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski."

www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyo...etical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relat...msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

So cosmic particles
that last longer when they are faster....are all lying.
The Universe lies?

leonardomenderes wrote:
So cosmic particles
that last longer when they are faster....are all lying.
The Universe lies?

Einsteinians lie. Einsteiniana's most pernicious hoax is undoubtedly the muon hoax. It is based on measuring the lifetime of muons "at rest". When cosmic-ray muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s to zero, their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because scientific rationality is so devastated that, when the muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely declare that in fact this muon is "at rest" and, being "at rest", disintegrates more quickly than another muon which is not "at rest", in perfect accordance with the predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html
"The purpose of this experiment is to measure life time of muons decaying at rest. Muons, produced in the atmoshere bombarded by high energy cosmic radiation, are passing through the system of two detectors located one above the other one. A coincidence of signals from these two detectors (signals occuring in both detectors within 100ns) marks a particle entering the muon telescope from above and serves as a filter rejecting many noninteresting signals from background radiation. Some particles, with appropriate energies, will end their flight in the lower detector (proper amount of lead between both detectors ensures that many of them will be muons). If a stopped particle is muon, it will decay after some time producing electron. The time interval between signals from the muon entering the lower detector and the electron emerging after its decay is converted by a time-to-amplitude converter into amplitude of signal fed to the CAMAC analog-to-digital converter (ADC) controlled by the computer. The spectrum of time intervals is displayed in the figure below. The expected distribution should be exponential with the exponential time constant being the average life time of muon. The full range of the spectrum (about channel 2000) corresponds to the time interval of about 25 microsecond. There are not many muons with such energies that they will end their path exactly in the lower detector (usually they will pass both detectors and will be stopped in somewhere in the ground), so counting rate is rather low. To collect a reasonable number of events, the experiment has to be run a number of days."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev, science fraud.

bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

Zero wrote:
Pentcho Valev, science fraud.

bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm


One wonders how many positive particle results
had to be discarded before a vaguely questioning
clip could be found.

It casts a rather interesting shadow on
the argument "hey, you should read all the works
of so-and-so before you comment". Self-education
can end in delusion. An outline by a decent
authority can be quite helpful in preventing
self-digestion.