http://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."

http://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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) 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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
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!

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Even the silliest Einsteinians are now leaving the sinking ship:

http://www.cuindependent.com/news/2009/apr/17/brian-greene-comes-cu/
"The CU community is one step closer to understanding complex scientific theories after a visit from Brian Green, a well-known physicist. Greene, a physicist and author of "The Elegant Universe," was warmly greeted by a packed auditorium at Macky on Wednesday. Opening with gracious statements that reflected his humor and humility, Greene was well received by the Boulder community and the student body. (...) EINSTEIN'S THEORY WAS BRILLIANT YET FLAWED, for it contradicted another theory. "It solved one problem only to open a whole 'nother can of worms," Greene said."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Nobody is defending dead relativity anymore. Einsteinians are organizing a conference:

http://www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIRT_BUDAPEST/

but cannot find famous invited speakers (see "Main speakers") and are forced to extend deadline:

http://groups.google.com/group/fa.philos-l/browse_frm/thread/bc465b3e33922a2e?

Where are famous Einsteinians now? They are all leaving the sinking ship in panic:

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."

http://www.cuindependent.com/news/2009/apr/17/brian-greene-comes-cu/
"The CU community is one step closer to understanding complex scientific theories after a visit from Brian Green, a well-known physicist. Greene, a physicist and author of "The Elegant Universe," was warmly greeted by a packed auditorium at Macky on Wednesday. Opening with gracious statements that reflected his humor and humility, Greene was well received by the Boulder community and the student body. (...) EINSTEIN'S THEORY WAS BRILLIANT YET FLAWED, for it contradicted another theory. "It solved one problem only to open a whole 'nother can of worms," Greene said."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton, 1 Mar 2009: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses.....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."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/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

Dead science can give you anything (or Einsteinians know no limits):

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/05/15/will-we-ever-travel-faster-than-light-a-la-star-trek/
"Just because Albert Einstein said that the faster-than-light travel is impossible isn't any reason to stop trying for it, a number of Star Trek-loving theoretical physicists have declared. To achieve the starship Enterprise's fabled warp speed, they propose simply bending the rules of physics a bit. The speed-of-light speed limit, they argue, only applies within space-time (the continuum of three dimensions of space plus one of time that we live in). While any given object can't travel faster than light speed within space-time, theory holds, perhaps space-time itself could travel. "The idea is that you take a chunk of space-time and move it," said Marc Millis, former head of NASAs Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. "The vehicle inside that bubble thinks that it's not moving at all. It's the space-time that's moving" [SPACE.com]."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

frustrated physicist criticices dead physicisist: that a research program for a life long

Quote from beloved Pencho's post: "Just because Albert Einstein said that the faster-than-light travel is impossible isn't any reason to stop trying for it"

Jose says: Hell, Pencho, It's already been proven with the Muon paradox: If the proper formula is (c+v), the Muon would be seen long before it arrived. Thus, it would be seen for a longer period, even if it didn't arrive below the expected altitude. The blue shifted radiation from it's appearance travels on down to the atmosphere where it is observed.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://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."
>
>http://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."
>
>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
> profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
> that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
> still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
> long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
> their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
> power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
> politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
> theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
> more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
> more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
> and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
> should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
> extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
> wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
> (...) 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."
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
> 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!

Quantum gravity expert Lee Smolin suggests that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate might have killed string theory. He also says that "the field of fundamental theoretical physics is in trouble"; one could suspect that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is to blame again:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
"Yet in his new book, The Trouble With Physics, theoretician Lee Smolin argues that string theory is not only weird, it might be wrong. A founding scientist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Smolin says that string theory is unconvincing maybe even nonscientific and that physicists have embraced it at the expense of other promising research. At home in Toronto, Smolin talked about physicist cliques and the true nature of the universe. So you're calling bull**** on a big chunk of modern physics. I wouldn't put it that way, but that's fair. The field of fundamental theoretical physics is in trouble, and this book is about why.....Well, every string theory that's been written down says the speed of light is universal. But other ideas about quantum gravity predict the speed of light has actually increased. And an experiment on the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope, launching next year, will check this. So I've said, look, if the speed of light isn't universal, that disconfirms string theory."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

> >http://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."
>
> >http://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."
>
> >http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> > Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
> > profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
> > that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
> > still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
> > long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
> > their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
> > power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
> > politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
> > theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
> > more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
> > more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
> > and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
> > should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
> > extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
> > wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
> > (...) 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."
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
> > 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!
>
> Quantum gravity expert Lee Smolin suggests that Einstein's 1905 false
> light postulate might have killed string theory. He also says that
> "the field of fundamental theoretical physics is in trouble"; one
> could suspect that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is to blame
> again:
>
>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.09/stringtheory.html
> "Yet in his new book, The Trouble With Physics, theoretician Lee
> Smolin argues that string theory is not only weird, it might be wrong.
> A founding scientist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
> Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Smolin says that string theory is
> unconvincing maybe even nonscientific and that physicists have
> embraced it at the expense of other promising research. At home in
> Toronto, Smolin talked about physicist cliques and the true nature of
> the universe. So you're calling bull**** on a big chunk of modern
> physics. I wouldn't put it that way, but that's fair. The field of
> fundamental theoretical physics is in trouble, and this book is about
> why.....Well, every string theory that's been written down says the
> speed of light is universal. But other ideas about quantum gravity
> predict the speed of light has actually increased. And an experiment
> on the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope, launching next year, will
> check this. So I've said, look, if the speed of light isn't universal,
> that disconfirms string theory."

Yet string theorists are optimistic. Einstein's Potemkin villages are still a money-spinner and will always be:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=528415
Brian Greene: "I began working on string theory - one of the most promising approaches25 years ago, as a young graduate student hungry to make a mark on the physics world. It was an exhilarating period leading some to proclaim naively that the insights of string theory would be so sweeping that the end of physics was near. Of course, as more-seasoned observers knew, the end was not near. Even today, while we've witnessed stupendous progress and the resolution of problems many thought beyond reach, a final assessment of string theory remains elusive. To some, this has been a disappointment. But that's not how I see it. For me, the past decades of anxious searching have illuminated spectacular new landmarks: extra dimensions of space curled into tiny labyrinthine geometries, a cornucopia of universes bubbling up beyond the most distant cosmic horizon, the fabric of space and time being stitched from threads of vibrating strings. These are the partially formed, stunning possibilities that efforts have revealed so far. Are they right? I don't know. No one does."
"Brian Greene, a physics professor at Columbia University, is the best-selling author of The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
>http://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."
>
>http://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."
>
>http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
> Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
> profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
> that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
> still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
> long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
> their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
> power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
> politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
> theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
> more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
> more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
> and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
> should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
> extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
> wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
> (...) 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."
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
> 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!

Extracting career and money from criticizing dead science:

http://merlib.org/taxonomy/term/3501
Challenging the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics with Professor Daniel Sheehan Ph.D., Physics Professor, San Diego University, California

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The critic of dead science bumps into this:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
"At first sight, the Second Law is indeed relevant for this arrow. If the entropy can only increase during a thermodynamical process, then obviously, a reversal of this process is not possible. Many authors believe this is a crucial feature, if not the very essence of the Second Law. Planck, for example, claimed that, were it not for the existence of irreversible processes, 'the entire edifice of the second law would crumble [. . . ] and theoretical work would have to start from the beginning.', and viewed entropy increase as a 'universal measure of irreversibility'. A similar view is expressed by Sklar in his recent book on the foundations of statistical mechanics: 'The crucial fact needed to justify the introduction of [. . . ] a definite entropy value is the irreversibility of physical processes.' (...) However, this is only one of many problems awaiting a student of the Second Law. There are also authors expressing the opposite viewpoint. Bridgman writes: 'It is almost always emphasized that thermodynamics is concerned with reversible processes and equilibrium states and that it can have nothing to do with irreversible processes or systems out of equilibrium . . .' It is not easy to square this view, - and the fact that Bridgman presents it as prevailing among thermodynamicists - with the idea that irreversibility is essential to the Second Law. Indeed, one can find other authors maintaining that the Second Law has little to do with irreversibility or the arrow of time; in particular Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa, Landsberg and Jauch. For them, the conflict between the irreversibility of thermodynamics and the reversible character of the rest of physics is merely illusory, due to a careless confusion of the meaning of terms."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
"The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" by Peter Hayes
"There is, nonetheless, some divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction, considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that (c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time dilation."

So sooner or later the critic of dead science finds himself in the position of Mr. Praline and abandons his "LINE OF INQUIRY":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

http://www.orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/petshop1.htm
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!
............................
Mr. Praline: Um...now look...now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not 'alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.
Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.
Mr. Praline: PININ' for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got 'im home?
Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!
....................................
Mr. Praline: I'M NOT PREPARED TO PURSUE MY LINE OF INQUIRY ANY LONGER AS I THINK THIS IS GETTING TOO SILLY!

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

In any mathematical step in a paper the author is obligate to say what he is doing with physics explainable .The coeficients in functions have differents natural meaning in dofferent places in functions .You can not move physics coeficients in functions without natural expaination .
Physics is not the same with mathematics .

That is possible in small experemental papers , but the most papers have mathematical verbalism .It's imposible an author to avoid mathematical verbalism , and natural sciences are more similar to philosophy .

I think if an author have a good start and a goog predictions at the end of paper it can be accepted if the professor is a known to science community .

In theoretical physics the only that remains is how much the professor is a well known in science community . Delete Comment Delete Comment

Math symbols are philosophical. Rarely have to do whit reality.