sloughter wrote on 07/23/10 at 11:09:42:


Without addressing the question of censorship in a controversial topic that I stated clearly will be closely monitored, is it wise to challenge the moderators in this way?

As much as I have been revolted by many of sloughter's previous contributions here, I think it really does not serve to take him to task for these in answer to his current post.  He should be allowed to say what he thinks on any given topic, and not always to have his history here trotted out. 

So much for the principles of rhetoric, but wasn't this person banned for anti-Semitic pronoucements?  

@sloughter:  Large-scale scientific theories, whether in cosmology, biology or anything else, are not the sort of things that are subject to immediate "falsification" by the discovery of some anomalous data.  (I disagree with Popper that all scientific propositions are susceptible to that.)  "Model" is a better term than theory, and we analyze the field of experience with the assistance of given models (such as the atomic "theory" and the "theory" of evolution) so long as they are useful (which does not rule out that some occasional anomalies may turn up).  It's only when anomalies predominate, and most especially when demonstrably more useful models have been specified, that existing models are overturned.

Finally I think that while there is a great deal of institutionality in science, it really goes to far to propose theories of outright conspiracy to defend known falsehood at the expense of known truth.  Some practioners may do this, but I don't think this characterizes the entire scientific establishment.  To the extent, indeed, that I think it is quite weird to think that it does.

Markovich wrote on 07/15/10 at 14:16:02:


In a later post, I was told there is no conspiracy by physicists to corrupt history. Here is a solid example of just such a conspiracy. From the website called, "The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts on Physics: The Big Bang Scandal," here is the foreward by Brian Martin:

"Textbooks present science as a noble pursuit of the truth, in which progress depends on questioning estabalished ideas. But for many scientists, this is a cruel myth...They know from bitter experience that disagreeing with the dominant view is dangerous---especially when that view is backed by special interest groups. Call it suppression of intellectual dissent...The usual pattern is that some one does research or speaks out in a way that threatens a powerful interest group, typically a government, industry or professional body. As a result, representatives of that group attack the critic's ideas or critic personally--by censuring writing, blocking publications, denying appointments or promotions, withdrawing research grants, taking legal actions, harassing, blacklisting, spreading rumors..."

And there is no conspiracy to suppress opposition to the Big Bang theory? 

You might not know it but physicsts refuse to use the data of Ed Dowdye out of Goddard Space Center. He has shown that there is absolutely no bending of light as it passes near a Black Hole as it revolves around the Black hole so there is a direct visual refutation of General Relativity. Physicists refuse to use the data.

MNb wrote on 07/23/10 at 17:18:11:

Strictly speaking, Einstein could logically have manufactured data and still have been right. This is in fact a very common (though lame) excuse from scientists who are caught cheating: They were so sure their theories were right that they didn't want to bother with all the dirty work of producing reliable, genuine data to support them!

Both falsifiability and work ethic have gone out the window at some point, obviously.

sloughter wrote on 07/23/10 at 10:01:52:


Perhaps you are not familiar with the book published by Abraham Pais, called, '"Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and this life of Albert Einstein" It is a 551 page book published by Oxford University Press.

What is not generally known by the public is that Einstein, at the end of his life, recanted his theories. On page 467, ibid, you will find the following statement, "To his dear friend Besso he wrote in 1954, "'I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. continuous structures. In that case NOTHING remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation included (and of) the rest of modern physics.'"

For someone who professes to "really, really dislike censorship" you seem perfectly willing to engage in that here.

If I don't see any comments connecting this to the religion discussion in this thread (beyond some weird conception of Einstein as God that doesn't make much sense to me), I'll move it to a new thread.

sloughter wrote on 07/22/10 at 21:03:30:


Einstein's reputation has been entirely agenda driven. First it was the editors of Annalen der Physik who published the so-called, "Miracle Year" papers of 1905. The only miracle is how big physics has managed to con the American public into believing they are a "miracle". They are of such consistently low quality that no reputable journal would publish them. Annalen der Physik is not a reputable journal. They encourage their contributors to underreference i.e. they endorse plagiarism. Plagiarism means, "to use without due credit, the ideas, expression or productions of another"

Einstein wrote his special relativity paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" a thirty page paper without a single reference. His wife, Mileva, the real brains behind the couple, was actively involved with the exposition, creation and quantification of the theory. Yet when Albert published his unreferenced paper, Mileva was not a coauthor, Einstein never referenced anything she wrote, and he didn't even include her in the acknowledgements, something many scientists do just as a perfunctory gesture! This is the greatest act of plagiarism in 20th Century science and physicists call it a "miracle".

The five 1905 "miracle" year papers I have characterized as "agenda-driven, plagiarized, non-reviewed, unresearched, internet-quality papers that should have died in the review process."

Einstein's starting conditions in his Brownian Motion paper are naive. He assumed he was dealing with marbles for molecules when, in fact, they behave as rubber bands. Obviously if you come up with a theoretical model based on spheres when, in reality, you are dealing with strands, you will generate junk science which is exactly what Einstein did. He didn't know that sugar molecules are strands.

Einstein's handling of the Cosmological Constant is the consummate act of incompetence in 20th Century science. Einstein appears to have sworn he was wrong when he may well have been right! I invite anyone to post a greater act of incompetence than this.

Here is what happened. Someone "told" Einstein that the universe was static. Like any good scientist, Einstein believed everything he was told. Einstein's reasoning was, "If gravity rules the universe and the universe is static, then it would collapse to a point. Therefore I am going to invent a mysterious anti-gravitational component to keep the universe open called, the 'Cosmologic Constant'". Along comes the background radiation suggesting the universe was expanding and just like that Einstein abandoned the CC and claimed it was, " the worst mistake of my career".

Think about it---if the universe was expanding, wouldn't that suggest that the CC had overcome gravity and therefore Einstein had data consistent with his theories. Like any good scientist, when Einstein had data consistent with his theories, he promptly rejected his own theories and called them, "the worst mistake of his career."

Fast forward to ten years ago. Astronomers have discovered "evidence" that the universe is expanding at a greater rate than can be accounted for. The result---Einstein's CC is reinvented! Hmm---Let me get this straight. Einstein rejected the CC because the Universe is expanding. Now physicists are saying that the universe is expanding which validates the CC!

Here are the classes of individuals who have benefited by puffing up Einstein's reputation: 1)The Editors of Annalen der Physik who wanted to promote their favorite son Einstein at the expense of Poincare and Lorentz, the true movers and shakers behind relativity, 2)The Pacifist Eddington who wanted to prove to the World just how important Pacifists were. "The Eclipse Data from 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science" shows that Eddington cooked the data just to promote the Pacifist Einstein. The Eclipse of 1919 will be a major battle line in the future as the Einsteinists try to justify the use of the this fraudulent data for over a century. 3)Einstein called himself, "A Jewish Saint", 4)Physicists. Why tell the truth about Einstein if you can line your pockets with wealth, power and prestige just by making outrageous claims about him, or better yet, just remain silent when others make outrageous claims about him? 5)The media---One Alburt Einstein is worth 100 Stephen Hawking's because Einstein can "push the ink". The most outrageous result is having Time Magazine call Einstein the "Person of the Century". If the editors of Ebony Magazine named Martin Luther King as "Person of the Century" would anyone doubt that it was a "favorite son" choice? Why is it any different when the Editor of Time Magazine names Einstein as "Person of the Century"?