1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO

  • Nothing Can Make Dead Physics Worse

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 19 06:40:10 2022
    Peter Woit: "Fundamental physical theory may now be over, replaced with a pseudo-science, but at least that means that things in this subject can't get any worse." https://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=12604

    Correct. Nothing can make dead science worse. Not even this:

    Sabine Hossenfelder: "I wrote a research proposal about inflation (in the early universe, not in your supermarket) and it bounced back because I didn't explain its relevance to "sex, gender, and diversity". I need to add a paragraph on this. Anyone has
    an idea what to write?" https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1494937030207365121

    See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 19 15:41:35 2022
    Sabine Hossenfelder: "Of course the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics want me to stop pointing out they are working on pseudoscience." https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1490945304438345728

    If "the vast majority of people who work in the foundations of physics...are working on pseudoscience", then fundamental physics is dead, isn't it? Who or what killed it? Let me guess: the killer is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood.

    The texts below imply that, if the speed of light is variable (it is!), physics has been long dead. The so called fundamental physics is actually a pernicious but lucrative ideology.

    "He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is
    embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

    "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very
    keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And
    ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not
    present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

    "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light
    without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

    More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 20 13:09:34 2022
    Peter Woit: "The worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology." http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

    The correct number is 117, not 25:

    "This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity
    theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] 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. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of
    the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

    Again: "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." No shame, theoretical physicists? No shame, philosophers of science?

    See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Mon Feb 21 01:53:54 2022
    On Sunday, 20 February 2022 at 21:09:37 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:
    Peter Woit: "The worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology." http://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

    The correct number is 117, not 25:

    "This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity
    theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] 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.

    Yes. A good example of this are the moderators of sci.astro.research
    To back up their GR fantasy, they pretended that Bertotti et al had analysed the
    Cassini data and found that refraction could not explain the observed
    time delays between frequencies. And pretended a conveniently paywalled
    Nature article by Bertotti on Cassini data proved this to be true.
    When I pointed out with citations that Bertotti himself had admitted in various other*open access* papers on arxiv that he DID NOT EVER test
    the data for time delays between frequencies......The moderators claimed
    these papers that I cited were “lies”. And because they were “lies” they
    could not post my response on sci.Astro.research.😂😂😂
    Obviously relativists find facts and empirical data to be unacceptable
    in the wacky world of relativity.

    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. [...] The triumph
    of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
    02691720902741399

    Again: "The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." No shame, theoretical physicists? No shame, philosophers of science?

    See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)