sloughter wrote on 08/25/10 at 21:14:08:

Nah!  We're still OK as long as we still retain our monopoly on hydrino technology.   
We must break free from the shackles of quantum mechanics and embrace shrunken hydrogen atoms! 

Markovich wrote on 08/25/10 at 14:17:04:


The single, most important, problem facing physicists is not Einstein; it is something most physicists don't even know is a ticking time bomb. If Energetics out of Israel manages to manufacture cold fusion devices and sells them in American, Big Physics is doomed. The reason is remarkably simple---We had a monopoly on Cold Fusion in 1989 when Pons and Fleischmann revealed their first cold fusion (not their name for it---the call them low-temperature nuclear reactions, not fusion) apparatus; it was immediately assailed by hot fusion scientists. These scientists managed to block funding, publications, patents and research aswellas scientists like Bob Park calling it "voodoo" science only to recant in the journal Chemistry World.

The only reason that America does not have a leadership role in this new technology, it will be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, was primarily the work of hot fusion scientists who so systematically tried to stiffle the technology. If Energetics patents and installs thousands of these hot water heaters in America, Americans are going to ask one simple question, "Why when we had a monopoly on the technology did we lose it?" The answer is simple: it was killed by scientists trying to protect their funding at the expense of our National Security.

MNb wrote on 08/25/10 at 07:20:24:


The degree of reductionism in science may cause some scientists to think that they are insulated from scrutiny outside their discipline. When it becomes known in the scientific community that the lowest quality of science ever done, the aftermath of the Eclipse Data from 1919, was directly responsible for steering science, the scientific method, society and history down a wrong path, people are going to wonder in the scientific community, "Can we trust physicists to police their own discipline, particularly when massive funding is attendant to that discipline?"

Einstein is like a bull elephant in his prime; his reputation seems unassailable, but chinks are beginning to appear. The repudiation of space/time (actually space/light velocity) is going to cause scientists outside of physics to wonder, "What others of his theories are in question?"

We now see in society the rise in prominence of "players", people who are adept at manipulating other people. Einstein was a past master at this. As I have said before, Einstein could win the Survivors Series by convincing the other players not to show up because obviously they would lose.

People don't want players in science. When it becomes clear to the American publich and outside America, that scientists are just as slimey as the typical used car salesman, people are going to wonder if the science being done is reflective of a much deeper problem---why America is falling by the wayside in science and mathematics.

When 60 Minutes devotes a major part of its show to vindicating Martin Fleischmann for his work in cold fusion and a diehard cynic became a believer after reviewing his findings from Energetics out of Israel, Americans are going to ask themselves, "Can we trust physicists to tell the truth?" They need only look in detail how MIT scientists corrupted the scientific method just to shut down cold fusion funding by DOE.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that if you throw out 85% of the data as has been done by and endorsed by experts to know that the results are meaningless.

General relativity became a "Strong Model" overnight to the exclusion of other models. As I have said in other published articles, "Strong models are like crude filters, readily admitting data consistent with the model and excluding data inconsistent with the model". This statement was from Graf, but I can't find a reference so I didn't credit it to him in my paper. Gasp! Plagiarism!

I also averred that Strong Models are like queen bees. The first thing a queen bee does when she realizes she is a queen is to kill off any potential rivals. That is how strong models work. We can only speculate what would have happened if Eddington had told the truth i.e. there would have been no way for the expedition to Principe or Sobral to say anything about general relativity, because neither the equipment, recording devices (the photographic plates) or the physical conditions, the eclipse shadow, allowed for any attempt to determine the deflection of starlight.

This fraudulent data set dictated the path of physics for several generations. As Ian McCausland has indicated, without the Eclipse of 1919, general relativity would have had to compete with other models and might not have fared quite so well if the deck hadn't been stacked in its favor by the Eclipse data.

Calling Einstein the top scientist in physics is going to be compared to being the top used car salesman.

sloughter wrote on 08/24/10 at 23:11:59:

It won't happen because scientists don't give a damn about historical matters, let alone the general public.
Really, who remembers that Stokes' theorem was found by Kelvin ?

And they're probably right. Individualities are overrated.
Relativity was to be found in that decade, that's all.

Random starification is annoying but hey, people just need their icons.
Perelman was disgusted enough with the star system so he turned down a million bucks.

AE wrote on 08/24/10 at 11:53:54:


Prediction: Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" will be regarded as the the most egregious act of plagiarism in any peer-reviewed journal of any paper in any branch of science in the 20th century.

Urik writes:

Quote:


I'm only the messenger. 

Having said that, I have to acknowledge that "Karl Adler" is knowledgeable about the essence of the Einstein/Poincaré priority dispute. Coming from the same ideological background as Bjerknes, he is the only person who seems to have thought it worth expending time on rebutting Bjerknes point by point on this issue.

sloughter: You write re Smyslov_Fan:

Quote:


Smyslov_Fan wrote:
Quote:


Smyslov_Fan clearly states he is repeating (for convenience) a link I had already given (the "first link"). So all you had to do was use the link in my posting, which obviously worked as Smyslov_Fan discussed the item. Furthermore, in another posting, having noted that Smyslov_Fan's link didn't work, I included the link again:

Quote:


Now this has been pointed out to you, you no longer have any reason not to respond to Smylov_Fan's request.