History of science

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon May 08, 2017 7:39 pm

Just watched a bit of "Genius", a new series based upon the life of Einstein.
What became very clear is that the story is not so much about the ideas of
Einstein, but how him being Jew in Nazi Germany.

I always found it strange that Einstein's ideas were accepted without
adaptions or considerations. The mainstream sees Einstein as infallible.
Yet, the mainstream has much more resistance against the wave-nature
of matter. It is easy to proof and as is expressed in quantum physics.
There are many different interpretations.
Logically, one would expect many different interpretations of
Einstein's formula's, but there are none.
It is even worse: in quantum physics, only those based upon Einstein's
particle model are allowed.

It appears to me that during a crucial time,
the scientists were using the fight against Germany
to push the ideas of Einstein without real opposition.
The war and propaganda pushed away all alternatives.
In the movie the alternatives are represented by Germans.
Symbolically the atomic bomb even relates with Einstein's success (E=mc²).

Even if you want to oppose Einstein's ideas today, you are
literally fighting a war against the mainstream.

“Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.”

- George Orwell.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri May 26, 2017 7:54 am

The CNPS Wiki intends to make good alternative theories public.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4245
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:15 am

in this world lies are more important than the truth. There is no science only the religion of science. Every good scientist is robbed and dismantled in some way. This is the history of it.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: History of science

Unread postby jimmcginn » Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:42 am

Webbman wrote:in this world lies are more important than the truth. There is no science only the religion of science. Every good scientist is robbed and dismantled in some way. This is the history of it.


So true!

All scientific categories or flavors can be defined and categorized on the basis of which plainly false notions they maintain as being sacred, beyond dispute. (And when I say all I mean all, including EU with its irrational obsession with electricity.) I've noticed for some time now that the currently popular theoretical explanations in physics is largely fictitious (dualism, QM, bent space time, string theory, multiverses, etc.).

Reality is too mundane to serve as the basis for our scientific understanding of reality in the minds of most people. When given a choice between a fantastic but unreasonable explanation and a mundane but reasonable explanation humans will always choose the fantastic and unreasonable explanation. (EU exemplifies the truth of this statement.) The reason for this are buried deep in human evolution.

One of the myths of human evolution is that the process produced a rational end product. This is not true. Humans are not rational but can best be described as hyper-pseudo-rational. This means that humans believe they are rational but are oriented to intellectually create their own pseudo-reality. (And the prevailing pseodo-reality can often become incorporated into a culture's social contract.) This is the reason intelligent people like you and me that create rational but mundane explanations will unavoidably find ourselves at odds with science-based fantasy. Human hyper-pseudo-rationalism is the result of millions of years of communal selection. It's here to stay.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

The 'Missing Link' of Meteorology's Theory of Storms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby silvanelf » Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:18 am

Zyxzevn wrote:I always found it strange that Einstein's ideas were accepted without
adaptions or considerations.

How did you come to this strange conclusion? The opposite was the case.

Please take a look at this article:
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Was Initially Met With a Universal Eye-Roll"
https://curiosity.com/topics/einsteins-special-theory-of-relativity-was-initially-met-with-a-universal-eye-roll-curiosity/
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Mon Jun 04, 2018 7:57 am

silvanelf wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:I always found it strange that Einstein's ideas were accepted without
adaptions or considerations.

How did you come to this strange conclusion? The opposite was the case.

Please take a look at this article:
"Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity Was Initially Met With a Universal Eye-Roll"
https://curiosity.com/topics/einsteins-special-theory-of-relativity-was-initially-met-with-a-universal-eye-roll-curiosity/


From the article:
The other countries did not accept Einstein's theories as they were considered absurd.
"Many German physicists opposed Einstein's theory,
but it is only in Germany that its opponents understood it .."
The writer then gives it a weird positive turn.

And this is where I stand too: the people that understand it are opponents.

As I am studying the discussions more, the scientists that studied the theory were
convinced that Einstein had made some big errors in his maths.
I have not seen these errors explained satisfactory.
They were waved away.

S.J. Crothers adds a lot more errors to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCmEyK4YLdI

One big problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox
Even in the wikipedia article they have no clue how to solve this paradox,
which is also a case that happens almost everywhere.
There are also similar paradoxes, where speed changes.

On reddit it was explained that special relativity does not work with acceleration,
which is almost every case. :shock:
In in those cases we should need general relativity, but it still does not really seem to solve it.
As Crothers explains in the video: You can not just solve it by using time (or speed) as a dimension.

Einstein's special relativity gave us the practical insight that light might not be
a wave in static "aether". Einstein instead pushed the idea that all light and forces were
particles. This creates a conflict with quantum mechanics and many other areas of physics.

These are all very interesting discussions, which could lead to better understanding
of physics. Instead it got decided that "aether" was wrong, and thus Einstein was right.
As if there are only two possible answers to the problem.

But somehow all these important discussions have been dumbed down.
Like the dumb "Twin paradox".
Or you are being marked as "dumb" when you question the validity of some
of these answers. Especially by the "sceptic" community. :roll:

If I look at the history, Einstein's theories were suddenly pushed through,
without much questioning.
I am trying to find out why.
It seemed to have happened during and after the war.
Especially with the atomic bomb, which is seen as a result of relativity.
This smells like war propaganda mixed with science.

Is it war propaganda?
Or was it due to the "popularity" of the atomic bomb?
Where his opponents dead or locked up?
Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
Did one school take control?
Or did the "sceptics" start a church of relativity?
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby silvanelf » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:28 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:If I look at the history, Einstein's theories were suddenly pushed through,
without much questioning.
I am trying to find out why.
It seemed to have happened during and after the war.
Especially with the atomic bomb, which is seen as a result of relativity.
This smells like war propaganda mixed with science.

Is it war propaganda?
Or was it due to the "popularity" of the atomic bomb?
Where his opponents dead or locked up?
Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
Did one school take control?
Or did the "sceptics" start a church of relativity?

Einstein published his Special Relativity theory in 1905.
The atomic bomb was deployed in 1945 -- 40 years later.
Your reasoning about history makes no sense. It's like a claim that Maxwell's equations were accepted due to World War I.

Was the failure of "static aether" too much?

I think the failure of aether theories played an important role. Between 1820 (or even earlier) and 1905 many prominent physicists tried to develop an aether theory consistent with experimental facts, but all these theories failed. The theory of a "dragged aether" failed too, not just the "static aether" theory -- but for different reasons.
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:38 pm

Was the failure of "static aether" too much?

I think the failure of aether theories played an important role. Between 1820 (or even earlier) and 1905 many prominent physicists tried to develop an aether theory consistent with experimental facts, but all these theories failed. The theory of a "dragged aether" failed too, not just the "static aether" theory -- but for different reasons.


I also agree with that.
The "aether" variant theories were very popular and failing.
So many moved to the relativity train.

But special relativity also introduced conflicts, and general relativity too.
Somehow I don't see them answered or tested thoroughly.
The Ehrenfest is an example, and also those by Crothers.

Sadly, for some reason it is against the mainstream to test the edge conditions
of these things. The tests that I see are usually testing against the
popular "aether" variants. It is just circle-jerking.
To test something you need a theory/model that is may also fit the results
(or part of the results).
Like: Does speed change time or only the speed of the physical processes?

The edge-conditions that I think that are interesting are:
Does gravitational bending still hold up now we know (See Skyscholar on youtube) that
the plasma of the sun extends much further than predicted?
Is the failure of gravity probe B (?) actually a null-result?
Why do the different measurements of G give different results?

For me it appears that physics is in a stand-still with these theories.
I see no clear explanations, no good educational movies on youtube explaining everything
in detail. It is just circle-jerking of old concepts. Twins, clocks etc.

Which means that the scientific progress has stopped for some reason.
For me the reason seems the lack of healthy scepticism and a
slightly wrong mathematical model to begin with.

So that is why I look for a reason for what caused this change.
And when it happened.
In my opinion it started around the 2nd world war (1938).
It also coincides with some "aether dragging" tests (Hammar 1935).
I think that these are all factors that influenced this attitude.

Crothers is very good in explaining exactly where things are going wrong mathematically.
So his topics are good directions to investigate further.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby crawler » Sun Oct 28, 2018 3:46 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Was the failure of "static aether" too much?
I think the failure of aether theories played an important role. Between 1820 (or even earlier) and 1905 many prominent physicists tried to develop an aether theory consistent with experimental facts, but all these theories failed. The theory of a "dragged aether" failed too, not just the "static aether" theory -- but for different reasons.
I also agree with that. The "aether" variant theories were very popular and failing. So many moved to the relativity train.
Static aether was wrong, & dragged aether was wrong, however the MMX's were not null with regard to aether itself. Miller eventually identified the background aetherwind in 1932 i think. Cahill provided the correct calibration in 2002. Demjanov's twin media (air-carbondisulphide) MMX done on 22 June 1970 in Obninsk (but not reported in English until say 2010) showed a background aetherwind varying tween 140 kmps & 480 kmps during 24hrs.
Zyxzevn wrote:But special relativity also introduced conflicts, and general relativity too. Somehow I don't see them answered or tested thoroughly.
SR & GR say that length ticking apparent speed etc are observer dependent -- a silly idea -- so of course u must get paradoxes (altho SR & GR dont give real answers & hencely u can say that there are no paradoxes because paradoxes only belong to reality).
Zyxzevn wrote:The Ehrenfest is an example, and also those by Crothers.
. The Ehrenfest paradox is not a paradox because the differential relativistic change in length (tangential versus radial) is logical, it happens, it is real (if FitzGerald Voigt Lorentz Larmor length contraction is real). Einsteinian SR length contraction is not real, & can be ignored here.
Zyxzevn wrote:Sadly, for some reason it is against the mainstream to test the edge conditions
of these things. The tests that I see are usually testing against the popular "aether" variants. It is just circle-jerking. To test something you need a theory/model that is may also fit the results (or part of the results). Like: Does speed change time or only the speed of the physical processes?
Yes there is no such thing as time dilation, what we have is ticking dilation. Time does not exist, or it does, it is the present moment, & this moment is universal.
Zyxzevn wrote:The edge-conditions that I think that are interesting are: Does gravitational bending still hold up now we know (See Skyscholar on youtube) that the plasma of the sun extends much further than predicted?
The satellite Hipparcos has given us the best proof that bending of visible light near the Sun is indeed 1.75 arcsec -- Hipparcos measured 1.745 arcsec (at the limb)(in effect) based on measurements taken at over 45 deg from the Sun (ie well away from the worst of the coronal plasma).
Zyxzevn wrote:Is the failure of gravity probe B (?) actually a null-result? Why do the different measurements of G give different results?
I think Reg Cahill gives an aetheric explanation.
Zyxzevn wrote:For me it appears that physics is in a stand-still with these theories. I see no clear explanations, no good educational movies on youtube explaining everything in detail. It is just circle-jerking of old concepts. Twins, clocks etc. Which means that the scientific progress has stopped for some reason. For me the reason seems the lack of healthy skepticism and a slightly wrong mathematical model to begin with.
For some good ideas look up Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state universe. And Reg Cahill's process physics.
Zyxzevn wrote:So that is why I look for a reason for what caused this change. And when it happened. In my opinion it started around the 2nd world war (1938). It also coincides with some "aether dragging" tests (Hammar 1935). I think that these are all factors that influenced this attitude.
Hammar's X showed that aether is not dragged. It was a good X, & not well understood at the time, & even less so today.
Zyxzevn wrote:Crothers is very good in explaining exactly where things are going wrong mathematically. So his topics are good directions to investigate further.
Yes Crothers (& Engelhardt) show that Einstein's claim that two events simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in any other frame is according to Einstein's postulates properly stated to be that any two events can be shown to be simultaneous in any & every frame if a suitable observer is chosen (ie including lightning flashes say one million years apart) -- HAHAHAAAHHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAA.
crawler
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: History of science

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:43 pm

crawler wrote:Yes Crothers (& Engelhardt) show that Einstein's claim that two events simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in any other frame is according to Einstein's postulates properly stated to be that any two events can be shown to be simultaneous in any & every frame if a suitable observer is chosen (ie including lightning flashes say one million years apart) -- HAHAHAAAHHHHAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAA.


I think you refer to the impossibility of the Big bang, which states that there was a "simultaneous flash" that caused matter and space to suddenly exist. The continuous background radiation is used as evidence for this. It is funny how Einstein's relativity breaks apart at almost every practical example.

I still wonder what or who made Einstein's (?) ideas so dominant. Even breaking some basic logic.
Some historical event must have caused this, and currently this seems to coincide with the 2nd world war
and all its propaganda.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby webolife » Sun Nov 04, 2018 7:07 pm

You are right, Zyxzven, the development of the atomic bomb claimed to be due to technology based on E=mc^2.
Such a remarkable world-changing phenomenon is indelibly etched in our cultural memory and will be for generations to come. But one has to ask, was the production of the A-bomb actually dependent upon Einstein, or simply inspired by him? Many writers will make the claim that the evidence well supports GR and SR, but "they" say the same about QM, to which Einstein objected strongly. Because a systematic approach is internally consistent a majority of the time does not reconcile the preponderance of "anomalies" that are regularly broadcast in the science media, and have been the subject of many threads on this forum. How many times do we read, "(__) were surprised by the observation of (__)" or "...these findings may rewrite the theory of ...". Those statements reflect the true "paradigm" of science history.
Systems are made to fall and be replaced by new systems. The complex cosmos flees and evades capture by artful or mathematical systems alike. Eventually, imho, if there is ONE, the final explanation will be obvious and understandable to a child.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: History of science

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:52 am

webolife wrote:But one has to ask, was the production of the A-bomb actually dependent upon Einstein, or simply inspired by him?
Neither. It was based on the experimentation of naturally fissioning material and chain reactions in the 1930's. They didn't even initially know that the atoms were splitting, that was only assumed to be happening as they progressed. Enough of any unstable material massed together causes it to go supercritical. Therefore;

1) Get some material
2) Enrich it
3) Experiment on how much to use - too little and it wont work, too much will go supercritical before step 4.
4) Create a contraption that forces it to go supercritical all at once by blowing it up.

You need feckall knowledge about relativity or E=mc2 to do this.

It was just assumed later by the fanboys, and after Hiroshima/Nagasaki, I suspect the real scientists involved were all happy for Einstein to take the, shall we say..."glory".
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: History of science

Unread postby jimmcginn » Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:50 am

[quote="Aardwolf]

You need feckall knowledge about relativity or E=mc2 to do this.

It was just assumed later by the fanboys, and after Hiroshima/Nagasaki, I suspect the real scientists involved were all happy for Einstein to take the, shall we say..."glory".[/quote]

Wow. So E=MC2 is just a pretty notion intended to pacify the masses.

I'd suspected this, but like everybody else I just assumed that Einstein's theory was essential.

Humans are brain-dead believers.
jimmcginn
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: History of science

Unread postby webolife » Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:10 am

Einstein's acceptance and dependence on the Lorentz transformation led to the expansion of E=1/2(mv^2) which led after some fancy mathemagic to the simplification E=mc^2. Because m (mass) is an idealized abstraction of weight, and C (because of the discrete yet unprovable assumption of its universal upper limit) is a convolution of velocity, the end result is a contortion which was mostly believed to be affirmed by the process of heavy element fission. Reported measurements of the Energy "released" by A-bomb explosions may be circularly determined by reference to E=mc^2, then used as a confirmation of same. I don't think it was a particularly pacifying result, but the concrete visual association of the huge amount of energy stored in atomic nuclear structure is an image difficult to remove from the individual or cultural memory.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2488
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: History of science

Unread postby formerlycbragz » Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:17 am

And let us not forget that "c=186,000 miles per second"is only in a VACUUM...there are no vacuums in the universe...
formerlycbragz
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:45 pm


Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests