Everybody, even the journal Nature, even the journal Science, even the Royal Society, even Athel Cornish-Bowden (my biographer), know the sad truth about deductive science, and they are constantly hinting at the tragedy, and they want to get rid of the absurdity, and yet... nothing can be done:

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://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.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433218a.html
In the journal Nature: "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."

http://www.newstin.com/tag/us/112417640
"Albert Einstein strengthened science through his contributions, but he may have inadvertently crippled science education through his example. This notion is supported by an editorial, "Redefining Science Education," published in January by Bruce Alberts, editor in chief of the journal Science. His main concern is that "many college-educated adults in the United States," including teachers, "fail to understand that science is a way of knowing completely different from mysticism, tradition and faith." Science is based on "evidence that can be logically and independently verified," rather than on personal authority. Most of the public accepted Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity based on his authority, rather than on the evidence presented."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3338512/Think-big-like-Einstein.html
Martin Rees: "Cynics have said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920 onwards. Although there's something rather noble about the way he persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some respects THE EINSTEIN CULT SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist. (...) And if we do arrive at such a unified theory, will it invalidate the efforts of Newton and Einstein or all of the modern physicists who have tried to explain the inexplicable? Not a bit of it. Scientists know that they can never reach finality. Cynics said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920 onwards, given the failure of much of his research." Lord Rees is President of the Royal Society

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

"...and they are constantly hinting at the tragedy, and they want to get rid of the absurdity...":

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
"Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!)

http://vaghelasv.com/Documents/Stephen.Hawking.A.Brief.History.Of.Time.pdf
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

"...and yet... nothing can be done" (the dogs bark but the caravan moves on):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/17/spaceexploration.comment
"And on 6 November, 1919, at a Royal Society meeting, the astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington revealed that observations, taken during a solar eclipse, showed that starlight was being deflected by the sun's gravitational field in a way that fitted Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. 'Revolution in science. New theory of the Universe. Newtonian ideas overthrown,' the Times announced the next day on its front page. Einstein became a global superstar - thanks to the Royal Society."

http://www.physorg.com/news162820004.html
May 29th, 2009
"The total eclipse of 29th May 1919 gave scientists the chance to test the theory for the first time. Eddington travelled to Príncipe to observe the eclipse and measure the apparent locations of stars near the Sun. Heavy clouds parted minutes before the eclipse and, with the Sun almost directly in front of them, the stars appeared to be shifted from the positions that Eddington had recorded in Oxford 4 months earlier - direct evidence that our nearest star shapes the space around it. Celebrations will include a series of public talks, the installation of an interpretative plaque in the location where Eddington made his observations and an exhibition illustrating the science of gravitational lensing from 1919 to the present. 'Without Eddington's clever experiment and the fortuitous timing of this total eclipse it might have taken ages before Einstein's theory of gravity, first proposed in 1915, was proven to be correct,' said Professor Pedro Ferreira of Oxford University's Department of Physics who is one of the event's lead speakers."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

"...and they are constantly hinting at the tragedy, and they want to get rid of the absurdity..."


It seems rather that PV want the world to be wrong to hide his own shortcomings.

Partners tell it all.

More partners:















They are just missign one logo: dumbass united.

In summary:

PV is doing physics as an activist: perverting his brain.

I take the interim.
____________________

Everybody, even the journal Nature, even the journal Science, even the Royal Society, even Athel Cornish-Bowden (my biographer), know the sad truth about deductive science, and they are constantly hinting at the tragedy, and they want to get rid of the absurdity, and yet... nothing can be done:

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://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.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n7023/full/433218a.html
In the journal Nature: "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."

http://www.newstin.com/tag/us/112417640
"Albert Einstein strengthened science through his contributions, but he may have inadvertently crippled science education through his example. This notion is supported by an editorial, "Redefining Science Education," published in January by Bruce Alberts, editor in chief of the journal Science. His main concern is that "many college-educated adults in the United States," including teachers, "fail to understand that science is a way of knowing completely different from mysticism, tradition and faith." Science is based on "evidence that can be logically and independently verified," rather than on personal authority. Most of the public accepted Einstein's 1915 theory of general relativity based on his authority, rather than on the evidence presented."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3338512/Think-big-like-Einstein.html
Martin Rees: "Cynics have said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920 onwards. Although there's something rather noble about the way he persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some respects THE EINSTEIN CULT SENDS THE WRONG SIGNAL."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist. (...) And if we do arrive at such a unified theory, will it invalidate the efforts of Newton and Einstein or all of the modern physicists who have tried to explain the inexplicable? Not a bit of it. Scientists know that they can never reach finality. Cynics said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920 onwards, given the failure of much of his research." Lord Rees is President of the Royal Society

http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings/CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com