Registrierung Mitgliederliste Administratoren und Moderatoren Suche Häufig gestellte Fragen Zur Startseite  

Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung Forum Wissenschaft und moralische Verantwortung Links zur Wissenschaftskritik und Erkenntnistheorie Homepage von Bryan G. Wallace Hallo Gast [anmelden|registrieren]
Druckvorschau | An Freund senden | Thema zu Favoriten hinzufügen
Neues Thema erstellen Antwort erstellen
Beitrag Vorheriges Thema | Nächstes Thema
Ekkehard Friebe Ekkehard Friebe ist männlich

Dabei seit: 23.11.2005
Beiträge: 1154

Homepage von Bryan G. Wallace Zitatantwort auf diesen Beitrag erstellen Diesen Beitrag editieren/löschen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden       IP Information Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Die Homepage von Bryan G. Wallace ("The Farce of Physics")
gliedert sich in folgende Kapitel:

... Introduction
1. Sacred Science
2. Pathological Physics
3. Mathematical Magic
4. Publication Politics
5. Light Lunacy
6. Relativity Revolution
7. Ultimate Unification
... References

Besonders bemerkenswert erscheint mir das Kapitel:
3. Mathematical Magic

Dort hei?t es am Schlu?:


The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian Andersen tale of "The Emperor's New Clothes", with Einstein playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who was "unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid." It turned out that no one could see the suit - not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one dared admit it until a little child cried out, "But he doesn't have anything on!"
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper (49) titled "The Einstein Shift - An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a "conscientious objector"! (Zitatende)

Bryan G. Wallace kommt also zu dem gleichen Schlu? wie Jocelyne Lopez in ihrer Homepage:

wo sie das Andersen-M?rchen: ?Des Kaisers neue Kleider? im Detail bringt.

Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe

Dieser Beitrag wurde schon 1 mal editiert, zum letzten mal von Ekkehard Friebe am 14.12.2005 22:00.

14.12.2005 21:51 Ekkehard Friebe ist offline Email an Ekkehard Friebe senden Homepage von Ekkehard Friebe Beiträge von Ekkehard Friebe suchen Nehmen Sie Ekkehard Friebe in Ihre Freundesliste auf
Ekkehard Friebe Ekkehard Friebe ist männlich

Dabei seit: 23.11.2005
Beiträge: 1154

Re: Homepage von Bryan G. Wallace Zitatantwort auf diesen Beitrag erstellen Diesen Beitrag editieren/löschen Diesen Beitrag einem Moderator melden       IP Information Zum Anfang der Seite springen

Nachstehend bringe ich einen Auszug aus Kapitel 4 der Arbeit:
Bryan G. Wallace "The Farce of Physics"


Publication Politics

Marilyn vos Savant is listed in the "Guinness Book of World Records" under highest IQ and publishes an "Ask Marilyn" column in the Sunday Newspaper Magazine PARADE. In the May 22, 1988 issue, Jennifer W. Webster of Slidell, La. asks:

What one discovery or event would prove all or most of modern scientific theory wrong?

Marilyn replies:
Here's one of each. If the speed of light were discovered not to be a constant, modern scientific theory would be devastated. And if a divine creation could be proved to have occurred, modern scientists would be devastated.

I suspect that Marilyn has hit the nail on the head. Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! Along with the creation-science debate being published in the letters section of Physics Today, there is also a continuing debate on Einstein's relativity theories. My first entry (21) into this debate was as follows:

Relativity debate continues

I would like to challenge two statements made by Allen D. Allen (November, page 90) in his reply to Wallace Kantor on the question of experimental relativity. Allen states "But Kantor is incorrect in claiming that there is a reliable experiment that refutes special relativity." With regard to this statement the 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense. (18,19) With regards to Allen's statement "Einstein's original contribution here was to assume that there just is no ether, that is, no frame R such that one's speed with respect to R affects the speed of light," Einstein and Infeld state "This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. At the moment it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles. Its story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory." (20 p.153,21)

Part of my second letter (22) on this matter, goes as follows:
...Concerning Dehmer's comment "In choosing appropriate persons to review the numerous manuscripts, the journal editors use various methods that reflect their own style and areas of expertise," I would like to present the following example of how this has worked for me. On 3 June 1969, I submitted a paper, "An Analysis of Inconsistencies in Published Interplanetary Radar Data," to PRL. The last paragraph of the referee report sent back August 15 states "It is suitable for Physical Review Letters, if revised, and deserves immediate publication if the radar data can be compared directly to geocentric distances derived from optical directions and celestial mechanics." I revised the paper as the referee recommended and resubmitted it 21 August. The editor, S. A. Goudsmit, sent me a reply 11 September, in which he stated that the paper had been sent to another referee and rejected. I sent a letter 13 September, complaining about the use of the second referee. I received a reply from Goudsmit on 23 September, in which he then stated that he had made a mistake in saying the paper had been sent to a second referee and that it had actually been sent back to the first one. He did this, in spite of the fact that there was absolutely no correspondence between the two reports. They were obviously typed on different typewriters, the first was completely positive, while the second was strongly negative and made no mention of the first report! I eventually published a revised version "Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space" in a less prestigious journal. (1cool At the December 1974 AAS Dynamical Astronomy Meeting, E. M. Standish Jr of JPL reported that significant unexplained systematic variations existed in all the interplanetary data, and that they are forced to use empirical correction factors that have no theoretical foundation. In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, in our time it is heresy to claim there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant...

The above unfair treatment I received in trying to publish a paper challenging Einstein's relativity theories, is not an isolated incident. As an example, as I mentioned in Chapter 6, in a June 1988 letter I received from Dr. Svetlana Tolchelnikova from the USSR, she wrote that thanks to PERESTROIKA she was writing me openly, but that her Pulkovo Observatory is one of the outposts of orthodox relativity. Two scientists were dismissed because they discovered some facts which contradicted Einstein. It is not only dangerous to speak against Einstein, but which is worse it is impossible to publish anything which might be considered as contradiction to his theory. It seems the same situation is true for her Academy. Lest one thinks that this sort of repressive behavior with regard to relativity theory happens only in the USSR, I have heard or read many horror stories of this happening to scientists throughout the world. To document the nature of the problem within the US, I would like to make several quotes from a book on this problem by Ruggero M. Santilli who is the director of The Institute for Basic Research:

This book is, in essence, a report on the rather extreme hostility I have encountered in U.S. academic circles in the conduction, organization and promotion of quantitative, theoretical, mathematical, and experimental studies on the apparent insufficiencies of Einstein's ideas in face of an ever growing scientific knowledge. (23 p.7)

In 1977, I was visiting the Department of Physics at Harvard University for the purpose of studying precisely non- Galilean systems. My task was to attempt the generalization of the analytic, algebraic and geometric methods of the Galilean systems into forms suitable for the non-Galilean ones.

The studies began under the best possible auspices. In fact, I had a (signed) contract with one of the world's leading editorial houses in physics, Springer-Verlag of Heidelberg West Germany, to write a series of monographs in the field that were later published in ref.s (24) and (25]. Furthermore, I was the recipient of a research contract with the U.S. Department of Energy, contract number ER-78-S-02- 4720.A000, for the conduction of these studies.

Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and other senior physicists at Harvard opposed my studies to such a point of preventing my drawing a salary from my own grant for almost one academic year.

This prohibition to draw my salary from my grant was perpetrated with full awareness of the fact that it would have created hardship on my children and on my family. In fact, I had communicated to them (in writing) that I had no other income, and that I had two children in tender age and my wife (then a graduate student in social work) to feed and shelter. After almost one academic year of delaying my salary authorization, when the case was just about to explode in law suits, I finally received authorization to draw my salary from my own grant as a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University.

But, Sidney Coleman, Shelly Glashow and Steven Weinberg and possibly others had declared to the Department of Mathematics that my studies "had no physical value." This created predictable problems in the mathematics department which lead to the subsequent, apparently intended, impossibility of continuing my research at Harvard.


Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:

Publication Politics

Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe

03.01.2009 08:41 Ekkehard Friebe ist offline Email an Ekkehard Friebe senden Homepage von Ekkehard Friebe Beiträge von Ekkehard Friebe suchen Nehmen Sie Ekkehard Friebe in Ihre Freundesliste auf
Neues Thema erstellen Antwort erstellen
Gehe zu:

Powered by Burning Board Lite 1.0.2 2001-2004 WoltLab GmbH