2012
by Bruce G Charlton (Author)
4.4 4.4 out of 5 stars 61
3.9 on Goodreads
35 ratings

Real science is dead.

Researchers are no longer trying to seek and speak the truth. Scientists
no longer believe in the truth. They no longer believe that there is an
eternal unchanging reality beyond our human organisation which they have
a duty to discover and disseminate. Hence, the vast structures of
personnel and resources that constitute modern science are not real
science but merely a professional research bureaucracy.

The consequences? Research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should almost always be ignored.

In practice, this means that nearly all science needs to be demolished
(or allowed to collapse) and real science rebuilt outside the
professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists
who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron
law.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer ‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a Cosmopolitan’ by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak.
WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 11.12.2024 02:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer ‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a Cosmopolitan’ by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak. WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.

QED is based on SR.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 11.12.2024 02:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally blunt answer 'no'. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See 'Diaries of a Cosmopolitan' by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak. WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.

QED is based on SR.

Supposing that Einstem had such an opinion. (probably not)

"No" was also the best possible answer
to get rid of the nuisance in the shortest possible time.
Note also that it is not clear at all what "atomic components"
might have meant at the time. (1921!)
For better understanding of the issues you would need a transcript
of !both sides! of the conversation.

Einstein worked with this Count Kesser on subjects like pacifism.
There is no indication that Kessler had much command of physics
beyond the obsolete high school level of his youth,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:50:38 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

Den 11.12.2024 02:25, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

"In his memoirs Count Harry Kessler records some conversations with
Einstein, including one where he asked the point-blank question : do
your theories relate to the atomic components? And receive the equally
blunt answer ‘no’. Einstein gave his opinion that objects on such a
small scale would not be covered by his theory (See ‘Diaries of a
Cosmopolitan’ by Kessler, entry for Monday 14th Feb 1921)" [Newton, Zak. >> WAS EINSTEIN WRONG? . The Electronic Book Company. Kindle Edition.]

Yes, Einstein was wrong when he thought that SR wouldn't
be applicable for "atomic components" such as electrons.

QED is based on SR.

That remains to be demonstrated. Quantum physics is still hobbled by SR
but is trying to free itself from time dilation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Den 11.12.2024 18:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:50:38 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

QED is based on SR.

That remains to be demonstrated.

Does this mean that you are ignorant of the fact
that Quantum Electrodynamics unites quantum physics
and relativity?

Quantum physics is still hobbled by SR
but is trying to free itself from time dilation.

Can you please explain what this statement means?

How is Quantum Mechanics (Bohr & co) "hobbled by SR",
and how is quantum mechanics trying to free itself
from time dilation?

I know you won't answer.
You never try to defend your ridiculous claims.

You are so ignorant of the most basic physics
that you babble meaningless statements like above.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Paul B. Andersen <relativity@paulba.no> wrote:

Den 11.12.2024 18:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:50:38 +0000, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

QED is based on SR.

That remains to be demonstrated.

Does this mean that you are ignorant of the fact
that Quantum Electrodynamics unites quantum physics
and relativity?

Quantum physics is still hobbled by SR
but is trying to free itself from time dilation.

Can you please explain what this statement means?

How is Quantum Mechanics (Bohr & co) "hobbled by SR",
and how is quantum mechanics trying to free itself
from time dilation?

I know you won't answer.
You never try to defend your ridiculous claims.

Ridiculous indeed, already for the Old Quantum Mechanics.
Sommerfeld for example applied relativity to the Bohr atom
to obtain correct results for some of the fine structure.

You are so ignorant of the most basic physics
that you babble meaningless statements like above.

Not just ignorant of basic physics,
also in ignorance of much of the history of it,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)