For more than a year almost all relatively clever hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult have been silent about the problems of theoretical physics and busy leaving sinking ships. John Baez is the only one who confessed in public:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track — but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Yet it seems hypnotists break the silence at their meetings and from time to time information about the magnitude of the crisis gets available:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=114140
"Most remarkable about the talk is that it is a stinging critizism of contemporary theoretical physics without actually ever mentioning it. Rovelli called Baez on that asking wether what he had just presented didn't imply that the theoretical physics of the last 25 years was "junk". To which John baez replied after some hesitation "You said it"."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Gee Pentcho, I wish you would get on one side of this argument or the other. On the one hand you claim Eisntein is a fraud and everybody protects his fallacies. But here you show that that isn't the case at all. So I guess this is your acknowledgment that all this zombie talk is just you not understanding what is really going on. Or are you just totally confused about the whole thing?

Of course John Baez the Educator would not have called Einsteiniana's science "schizophrenic" and "junk" if money coming from NASA and possibly other sources had not disappeared so unexpectedly:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html
"In March 2008 at NASA's invitation, we submitted a proposal to the Science Mission Directorate, Astrophysics Division Senior Review of Operating Missions (Sr. Review), requesting a final 18-month (October 2008 through March 2010), $3.8M extension of GP-B to complete the data analysis and publish the results. In April, as part of the Sr. Review process, GP-B Principal Investigator, Francis Everitt, and Program Manager, William Bencze, made a presentation to the Sr. Review Committee at NASA Headquarters, where it appeared to have been favorably received. Thus, we were greatly surprised last week to discover that the Sr. Review had recommended that NASA not grant our final funding extension, particularly since another NASA committee—the GP-B Science Advisory Committee (SAC), chaired by relativistic physicist Clifford Will—stated in its report following the November 2007 meeting: “The SAC was impressed with the truly extraordinary progress that has been made in data analysis since SAC-16 [Mar 2007] … and we now agree that GP-B is on an accelerating path toward reaching good science results."

Einsteiniana plus no money. Oxymoron. The travelling twin returns younger, the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside the 40m long barn, the bug from the bug-rivet paradox is both dead and alive, and yet nobody is paying for that. Tragedy.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Perhaps the silence will be broken by the end of September when Einsteiniana's bosses will have to decide how to fill the empty space beyond Einstein:

http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/

Some of the bosses are considering very carefully Einstein's 1909 idea that Newton's emission theory of light should be resurrected:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation by Albert Einstein
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."

If the other bosses don't mind, John Stachel and Jean Eisenstaedt will resurrect Newton's emission theory of light immediately - they believe it is compatible with Einstein's idiocies and is even "infinitely more interesting - and more usefull pedagogically" than them:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang': How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel, Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was applying them to the apparently quite different field of electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem; nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the two."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison théorique à ce que la vitesse de la lumière ne dépende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de Newton, pour que la lumière se comporte autrement - quant à sa trajectoire - qu'une particule matérielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de raison pour que la lumière ne soit pas sensible à la gravitation. Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer à la lumière toute la théorie newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes, opticiens, philosophes de la nature à la fin du XVIIIème siècle. Les résultats sont étonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux.....Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques, l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com