It seems revolution in science in Kuhnian sense occurs only when a consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything within its scope in 18th century, at the end of 19th century it seemed so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it when they were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in 1887 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 (e.g. 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 development:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

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://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."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

AAF: That is correct. The sum of the gravitational effects inside a hollow sphere is zero.




Bob S: Only the quantum of mass can hold a Hollow Shell (if in fact it existed, which it does not!) therefor, a quanta of mass can not construct a Hollow Shell so I am right even if Newton is right, which he is not, he is wrong and I'm still right!




AAF: As far as the existence of this hypothetical 'quantum of mass' is concerned, you're right; Bob! But when it comes to considering hollow spheres from gravitational standpoint, Newton is right. The sum of the gravitational effects from all parts of the thin surface is equal to zero everywhere inside the hollow sphere.

http://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."

_______________________________

Who cares the opinion of an economist on physics.
Nobody even cares their opinion on economy !
Economy is a caricature of science, the ideal world for all cranks.

Bob S: Only the quantum of mass can hold a Hollow Shell (if in fact it existed, which it does not!) therefor, a quanta of mass can not construct a Hollow Shell so I am right even if Newton is right, which he is not, he is wrong and I'm still right!




AAF: As far as the existence of this hypothetical 'quantum of mass' is concerned, you're right; Bob! But when it comes to considering hollow spheres from gravitational standpoint, Newton is right. The sum of the gravitational effects from all parts of the thin surface is equal to zero everywhere inside the hollow sphere.




Bob S: Exploiting the trivial to avoid the obvious is just another Cincinarian trick of yours AAF. A Hollow Shell can only exist within the quantum particle of mass, if it does exist, which it does not. Those quantum particles can not construct a larger Hollow Shell because the Shell would no longer be Hollow and therefor, the gravitational attraction at the center of a gravitational body (composed of n quantum particles) would be the inverse of the gravitational body at the surface. I am right whether Newton's Hollow Shells exist or not!




AAF: Wake up, Bob! Hollow spheres are all around you: British football, American football, baseball, tennis ball, volleyball, basketball; you name it...





Can Bob compute the gravitational center for my volleyball?

Re: AAF, REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE: KUHN'S MISTAKE August 4 2009, 12:54 AM

"Can Bob compute the gravitational center for my volleyball?"

But of course, it is the inverse of the gravitational surface!

Thank you so much, Uncle Bob!

Re: REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE: KUHN'S MISTAKE
August 5 2009, 7:08 PM

"[linked image]
Thank you so much, Uncle Bob!"

You and I are not related by blood or by marriage!

To Uncle Bob:

Bob, why are you carrying a pile of plates?


The fore-mentioned BACON is most likely the author of THE NEW ORGANON:

Re: AAF, REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE: KUHN'S MISTAKE August 6 2009, 2:53 PM

"To Uncle Bob:

[linked image]

"REJECT CHRIST

RECEIVE BACON"

If I had to choose between Christ and Bacon I would choose Me. Each person is responsible for their own salvation!

SO, YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE TRUE BACON?

Re: AAF, REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE: KUHN'S MISTAKE August 7 2009, 3:13 PM

AAF: "SO, YOU HAVE CHOSEN THE TRUE BACON?"

No! I have chosen myself.
"Tibi ipsi dic vere"

But, Bob, having bacon for breakfast leads to "Tibi ipsi dic vere"!

Question:

for the latin translation "To thine own self be true". i've gotten "Tibi ipsi dic vere" and "Tibi ipsi dic verum". Are they both proper translations? if not, which one is correct, and if both are incorrect, what is the correct translation?



Answer:

If "To thine own self be true" (Shakespeares Hamlet, Act I, scene III, lines 78-80) means that you must be truthful/sincere with yourself, you can say in Latin either "Tibi ipsi dic vere" (literally, "Speak truly to yourself " ) or "Tibi ipsi dic verum" (literally, "Tell the truth to yourself "): TIBI IPSI DIC VERUM




Unless, of course, you take the advice of this sort of doc:

Pentcho: It seems revolution in science in Kuhnian sense occurs only when a consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything within its scope in 18th century, at the end of 19th century it seemed so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it when they were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in 1887 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 (e.g. 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 development.







AAF: I have a slightly different take on those so-called 'revolutions in science'. There are genuine revolutions. And there are phony revolutions. A typical example of the real type is the Copernican Revolution. And a typical example of the phony type is Einstein's Revolution. Genuine scientific revolutions are driven by genuine discoveries. And phony scientific revolutions are driven by phony discoveries. In both cases, the sheer desire to make new discoveries is the driving force. This desire to immortalize one's self this way is so strong that active researchers do not hesitate a minute to make phony discoveries, when they can't find the genuine ones. As a result, phony revolutions occur more frequently in the fields with the least probability for making real and genuine discoveries; either because those fields are inherently sterile or because they've been exhausted.

For the sake of argument, let those who are still waiting for a revolution of Kuhnian type try to imagine anomalies that may some day undermine the supreme law of Nature:

http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equationsthen so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observationwell, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

They will fail. Historically the deduction of the supreme law involved so much obscurity, invalidity and falsehood that the final words "entropy" and "increases" are devoid of any meaning. On the other hand, postscientists vulgarize the supreme law in such a way (e.g. "Air molecules never gather spontaneously in the corner of the room") that falsifying experiments are not even imaginable.

Postscientism implies absurd theories that are INHERENT in our civilization. They are dying but this does not mean that a young developing society is getting rid of its imperfections. Rather, dying absurd theories characterize the senile decay of the civilization.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

On Jul 21 Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It seems revolution in science in Kuhnian sense occurs only when a
> consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting
> one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything
> within its scope in 18th century, at the end of 19th century it seemed
> so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it when they
> were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in
> 1887 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
> (e.g. 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 development:
>
>http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
> 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."
>
>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
>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://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."
>
>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."

AAF, Your attempt at humor borders on the dangerous. I really don't want to see pictures of things/girls that are not relevant to the topic. If these children are not yours then please do not post them. I usually don't care about your fight with Bob. I don't know how he puts up with it. But when you start posting pictures of children, you endanger us all and you discredit any conversation.

This was a topic on time, relativity, thermodynamics and the axioms of physics. Does Pentcho Valev's postings offend your sense of physics so much that you would vandalize his ideas.

Why did you bait Bob into a conversation on inverse gravity and spheres? There are threads for this already. This was not part of the conversation.

Aaron

Aaron: Mass does not exist in nature. Mass is a construct used to determine weight with a lack of volume. So all equations based on mass are incorrect. Photons are information in motion. They deliver their information about the emitting baryon to an electron. That information is converted to a Z Boson and transmitted to the gluons. Then the baryon changes. Photons show density of information. The Zeeman effect shows individual photons being spread into their component information bits. The Zeeman effect is produced by magnetism, not gravity. This model can be read here under my published papers or at my blog. Aaron Guerami http://aaronsreality.blogspot.com






AAF: I don't think the statement that "mass does not exist in nature" makes or could make any sense at all! Since it's self-evident that mass is one of the most salient and fundamental characteristics of the physical world. If mass didn't exist, then nothing else could exist. And so, Aaron, a daring but clearly false statement like this would only tend to discredit the model in question and prevent others from taking it seriously. And you should be very aware of that.





Aaron: AAF, Your attempt at humor borders on the dangerous. I really don't want to see pictures of things/girls that are not relevant to the topic. If these children are not yours then please do not post them. I usually don't care about your fight with Bob. I don't know how he puts up with it. But when you start posting pictures of children, you endanger us all and you discredit any conversation. This was a topic on time, relativity, thermodynamics and the axioms of physics. Does Pentcho Valev's postings offend your sense of physics so much that you would vandalize his ideas. Why did you bait Bob into a conversation on inverse gravity and spheres? There are threads for this already. This was not part of the conversation.





AAF: It is up to me to judge what is relevant and what is irrelevant to my posts; right, Aaron? As for the posted pictures, don't worry too much about their legal status! Firstly, the context, in which those pictures linked here, is lawful and very decent. And secondly, all of them are published and linkable and in the public domain. And if there is any legal issue, then the responsibility for it falls squarely on the shoulders of the original publishers. And therefore, Aaron, you're in no way in danger because of my linked little pictures... God bless....

AAF:

Sometimes Aaron is a little grouchy. At least he is not as offensive as Anonymous. But then Anonymous is not as offensive as Iggy Liggety, or minmax. You try to run a forum,you get all types. What fun would it be if we all agreed on everything?

When you are right, you are right. Everyone else in the whole universe can be wrong and not admit you are right, you are still right. But, you have to field on-point criticism.

NOw, just get used to it: I am right.

Example of an anomaly which should have produced a pre-revolutionary situation in Kuhnian sense but which, in the era of Postscientism, can only favor the career advancement of a few postscientists:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/116
"In addition, some quantum-spacetime models predict a particular relationship between the speed of photons in gamma rays and their energy. There have already been tantalizing hints of these effects. In 2007, for instance, the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope collaboration based on La Palma in the Canary Islands announced that they had measured a 4-minute time difference between the arrival of high and low-energy gamma rays released at the same time in a flare from the Markarian 501 galaxy, some half a billion light years away (Physics Letters B, 668, 253-257, 2008). Standard theories suggest that the photons should have arrived simultaneously. Along with Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, Amelino-Camelia has begun analyzing new gamma-ray data from NASAs Fermi Telescope, launched in June 2008 (see image above right). The new data show similar delays in the arrival times of photons, which they believe will help physicists discriminate between these models."

Whether or not the experimental data are correct is not so important; what is important is that nobody cares. If the speed of light is not constant, as the experiments suggest, the postscientific community will continue singing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and getting their salaries regularly. If the experimental data prove incorrect, the postscientific community will continue singing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and getting their salaries regularly.

On Aug 16 Pentcho Valev wrote:
> For the sake of argument, let those who are still waiting for a
> revolution of Kuhnian type try to imagine anomalies that may some day
> undermine the supreme law of Nature:
>
>http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
> think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
> points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
> disagreement with Maxwell's equationsthen so much the worse for
> Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by
> observationwell, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
> But if your theory is found to be against the second law of
> thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
> collapse in deepest humiliation."
>
> They will fail. Historically the deduction of the supreme law involved
> so much obscurity, invalidity and falsehood that the final words
> "entropy" and "increases" are devoid of any meaning. On the other
> hand, postscientists vulgarize the supreme law in such a way (e.g.
> "Air molecules never gather spontaneously in the corner of the room")
> that falsifying experiments are not even imaginable.
>
> Postscientism implies absurd theories that are INHERENT in our
> civilization. They are dying but this does not mean that a young
> developing society is getting rid of its imperfections. Rather, dying
> absurd theories characterize the senile decay of the civilization.

Thanks, Jose...


I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Aaron has good fatherly protective instincts;
mixed of course with some tactical nonsense like trying to get Pentcho on his side
and calling the critics of his fabulous Boson Model 'hyenas'!


However, I have a bunch of comments on his model ready for posting.
And I'm not going to throw those comments away just to avoid being one of the hyena!

An unexpected confirmation of my thesis that "a pre-revolutionary situation in science is characterized by unbearable boredom, not by an unbearably large set of anomalies" (see below) can be found in the journal Nature:

http://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."

In Einsteiniana's terminology John Barrow is by no means troll, crank, crackpot etc:

http://plus.maths.org/latestnews/jan-apr06/templeton/index.html

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

On Jul 21 Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It seems revolution in science in Kuhnian sense occurs only when a
> consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting
> one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything
> within its scope in 18th century, at the end of 19th century it seemed
> so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it when they
> were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in
> 1887 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
> (e.g. 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 development:
>
>http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
> 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."
>
>http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
>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://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."
>
>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.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/21/creation-film-us-science-evolution
"Perhaps America's distrust of a major scientific theory could be dismissed as part of the country's quirky charm, with no real consequences because the story of creation has little to do with our practical, day-to-day lives. As long as that 39% of disbelievers are making our microchips and producing swine flu vaccine, who cares? But sadly, such mistrust of science is not limited to the story of creation, but extends to stem cell research, climate change and cloning. The Gallup poll did not capture a scientific debate."

Let alone thermodynamics and relativity where "scientific debate" sounds oxymoronic.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

It seems revolution in science in Kuhnian sense occurs only when a consistent but dull theory is replaced by an inconsistent but exciting one. Since Newton's emission theory of light had explained everything within its scope in 18th century, at the end of 19th century it seemed so archaic and dull that scientists did not even consider it when they were trying to interpret the Michelson-Morley experiment (although in 1887 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 (e.g. 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 development:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

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://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."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com