Time Explained

[Brain Man]

I've checked Farsight's and Brain Man's claims against various pseudoscience criteria.

Martin Gardner in his Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science had listed:

1. He considers himself a genius.
2. He regards all colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.
3. He believes himself persecuted or unjustly measured or discriminated against.
4. He has strong compulsions to go after the most famous or accepted leaders of that field and the most-accepted theories.
5. He has a tendency to talk and write in complex jargon, in some cases using figures of speech or descriptions that he himself has coined.

One may object that they have no bearing on the correctness of a theory, but it is an empirical correlation: when the advocates of some theory have as their main argument what oxen the orthodox are, that theory is not likely to be a good contribution to knowledge, let alone a groundbreaking discovery.

Several of Farsight's and Brain Man's recent posts fit criteria 2 and 3 very well, like their recent ones in this thread. Complaining about how difficult it is to get published? Criterion 3. Distinguishing between hill-climbers and valley-crossers? Criterion 2.

Gardner explains criterion 4:

When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. This same defiance can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-established beliefs. Mathematicians prove the angle cannot be trisected. So the crank trisects it. A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one. There are many eccentric theories in which the "pull" of gravity is replaced by a "push." Germs do not cause disease, some modern cranks insist. Disease produces the germs. Glasses do not help the eyes, said Dr. Bates. They make them worse. In our next chapter we shall learn how Cyrus Teed literally turned the entire cosmos inside-out, compressing it within the confines of a hollow earth, inhabited only on the inside.

Farsight's theory of time fits that pattern very well. Instead of motion being a function of time, time is a function of motion.

However, Farsight's and Brain Man's posts mercifully do not fit criterion 5.

I don't have the patience to score Farsight's theories with John Baez's Crackpot index, but from a quick glance, some of it does more-or-less fit. Like:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

Looking at the other sets of criteria, Farsight's quoting of Maxwell and Einstein remind me of the Radners' and John Casti's criterion "Research by literary interpretation".

Nice analogy and worth exploring properly.

It can be seemed up though by delusional spectrum. And things can get complicated as everybody starts finding reasons to call each other deluded. This has come to transpire for good reason, as a lot of creative thinking requires periods of conviction not subject to rationale.

in regards to hill climbers and valley jumpers, thats a term used from an analysis of where science is going by top people in the field itself.

Science was already a door in your face kind of area, as commented on by some of the top figures in it from last century. But lately it has got ridicolous. i.e. We had a nobel laureate test the arXIV system by trying to publish somebody elses paper. We have Garret Lisi having to solve subatomic physics in his campervan.

in fact youve basically lumped me as delusional for repeating statements made by top people in the system itself. im doing very well in sciences thank you. better than i had ever hoped for. im not having a problem myself, but i am interested in how things operate.

[lpetrich]

in regards to hill climbers and valley jumpers, thats a term used from an analysis of where science is going by top people in the field itself.

Which people, Brain Man? You're the first one I've come across who refers to "hill climbers" and "valley jumpers".

I'll repeat Gardner's criteria 2 and 3:

(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels.

Consider the following quotation: "To me truth is precious.... I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong... . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. ... But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still."

These sentences are from the preface of a booklet, published in 1931, by Charles Silvester de Ford, of Fairfield, Washington, in which he proves the earth is flat. Sooner or later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.

(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the part of the established hierarchy—the high priests of science who fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown.

Vicious slanders and unprovoked attacks, he usually insists, are constantly being made against him. He likens himself to Bruno, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, and other great men who were unjustly persecuted for their heresies. If he has had no formal training in the field in which he works, he will attribute this persecution to a scientific masonry, unwilling to admit into its inner sanctums anyone who has not gone through the proper initiation rituals. He repeatedly calls your attention to important scientific discoveries made by laymen.

If the shoe fits...

[Brain Man]

in regards to hill climbers and valley jumpers, thats a term used from an analysis of where science is going by top people in the field itself.

Which people, Brain Man? You're the first one I've come across who refers to "hill climbers" and "valley jumpers".

check out post 77 of this thread.

I'll repeat Gardner's criteria 2 and 3:

(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself. Frequently he insults his opponents by accusing them of stupidity, dishonesty, or other base motives. If they ignore him, he takes this to mean his arguments are unanswerable. If they retaliate in kind, this strengthens his delusion that he is battling scoundrels.

Consider the following quotation: "To me truth is precious.... I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong... . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. ... But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still."

These sentences are from the preface of a booklet, published in 1931, by Charles Silvester de Ford, of Fairfield, Washington, in which he proves the earth is flat. Sooner or later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.

(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. It springs solely, he is convinced, from blind prejudice on the part of the established hierarchy—the high priests of science who fear to have their orthodoxy overthrown.

Vicious slanders and unprovoked attacks, he usually insists, are constantly being made against him. He likens himself to Bruno, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, and other great men who were unjustly persecuted for their heresies. If he has had no formal training in the field in which he works, he will attribute this persecution to a scientific masonry, unwilling to admit into its inner sanctums anyone who has not gone through the proper initiation rituals. He repeatedly calls your attention to important scientific discoveries made by laymen.

If the shoe fits...

Good point. im glad u brought this stuff up.
Some of the above, equally applies to people who produced the goods. So a better description is required. its of great value that we find a more up to date means to determine who is delusional and who is not.

if you read post 77 of this thread you will find out that this is considered a generalized problem within science by scientists themselves, that is emerging as new trend. Thankfully i have not had to deal with this myself, and have been amazed at how far its possible to go as long as you are part of a university or well affiliated organization. However i am quite amazed by what some quite credible scientists are having to go through these days.

Probably better a thread on its own i think.

[Brain Man]

thought i better paste this link here to the physics world article on hill climbers, as it was from another thread.


http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 8&start=25

I posted the contents about half way down as the original article requires registration

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/38468

another point RE: delusion, is that for a while i considered i should not listen to people with deluded aspects to their thinking. Then it soom became clear it was not that simple. I was meeting academics, teachers etc with a religous side to their personality, or even just a self deluding aspect, yet they could provide me with some amazing insights, clarity and exhibit hard scientific discipline in other areas such as their speciality, which appeared for the most unaffected. They also appeared to have some creativity in their process that was the flipside of the delusion. i.e. They could generate a lot of ideas. Perhaps the moods in a creative person cause schizms, with areas of excellence arising in their minds, and others not so great.

This made me realise that (men usually) seem able to apply self discipline in some areas of their lives whilst in others they do not. if its worth it, you basically have to take the good with the bad, and keep a mindfull eye open, whilst being diplomatic on the other. People with patches of delusion in their personality often know the areas they are shakey in, but are watching to see how sensitive you are. The fact is they have these aspects because they require them for some kind of happiness in life.

If you just rejected everybody on the basis of ever having posessed a deluded thought or the criteria you posted, you wouldnt really be left with a lot of what we have today.

[Twiglet]

Very interesting stuff from Gardner.

In my experience, mathematical understanding and conceptual understanding go hand in hand. Without a clear idea of what the results of an equation "look like", there is really just a Platos Cave, and groping in the dark trying to understand why the shadows are moving about in a 2D world from a 3D reality outside it.

It's easy to appeal to conceptual understanding, because we share a common language, and speech is quite democratic. We can all argue a pretty good case irresepective of whether we understand the argument. Using linguistic traps, hyperfocusing on contradictions, creating strawman arguments, appealing to authority, appealing to complexity, befuddling the audience with data they don't understand then inventing a story for what it means....

It's tempting to try and understand physics purely conceptually because it's bloody hard for most people to grasp it any other way. Unfortunately, the resilience of conceptual understanding in physics isn't easy to confirm without maths or experiment. There is an extremely concise way of describing reality "truthfully" - by which I mean - consistent with scientific understanding, which causes most physicists to choose words extremely carefully. Because they are translating from a very precise language (maths) into an imprecise one.

For example, one of the key div/grad identities could be summed as "the volume of water falling through a sieve over time is equal to the amount which transits the surface over the same period of time" - this relates the volume of water to the surface the water crosses. It's a key mathematical identify used to solve Maxwells field equations. The description give is easy to understand but the maths, and the manipulation of the equations involved in solving those problems is post-graduate level in most real world situations, if it can even be solved empirically.

Scientists are not being deliberately difficult. It takes literally hundreds of hours of sequential lectures to solve Maxwells equations, or the Schrodinger equation - for just a handful of cases. We aren't being obtuse. To reach the same point, it isn't enough to listen to a linguistic argument, you need to put in the legwork. It's quite similar in some ways to learning a language. You can know how tenses work (past, present, future) and some basic grammatical rules, but you need a vocabulary to communicate, and you won't be able to communicate with a native speaker effetively without learning some words.

It's all useful. Having a vocabulary and knowing how to construct a sentence are both needful for communication. Knowing the maths is like knowing sentence structure, and theories are ideas put into that structure. There's only so far I can push the analogy, but maths essentially allows us to "rephrase" a sentence so that it means identical things said in a different way - which is part of what enables it to be used predictively.

When a non-scientist takes a linguistic concept and then claims it means something (using the rules of english grammar) it's Platos Cave. They haven't followed the strictly defined process to show equivalence.

There are lots of good books explaining scientific principle, but they are generally one-way translations. Arguing semantics about physics is generally just an exercise in gibberish. If you want to argue about what's consistent with a theory, you generally need to understand it's mathematical formulation and make your argument accordingly.

[Brain Man]

Very interesting stuff from Gardner.



When a non-scientist takes a linguistic concept and then claims it means something (using the rules of english grammar) it's Platos Cave. They haven't followed the strictly defined process to show equivalence.

There are lots of good books explaining scientific principle, but they are generally one-way translations. Arguing semantics about physics is generally just an exercise in gibberish. If you want to argue about what's consistent with a theory, you generally need to understand it's mathematical formulation and make your argument accordingly.

I do not have a problem with this. My preference is for mathematics myself. If I cannot do this myself i will make an attempt to recruit somebody who does, like a software designer who recruits a coding specialist. Its overall a satisfying process to move proceedings along in such a manner. Today there are many forms of coding (maths is just a form of coding), plain maths, computer modelling, statistical mechanics etc. Without such encoding you cannot apply an insight gained conceptually to operate in any fashion.

[Farsight]

I've checked Farsight's and Brain Man's claims against various pseudoscience criteria. Martin Gardner in his Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science had listed:

1. He considers himself a genius.
2. He regards all colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.
3. He believes himself persecuted or unjustly measured or discriminated against.
4. He has strong compulsions to go after the most famous or accepted leaders of that field and the most-accepted theories.
5. He has a tendency to talk and write in complex jargon, in some cases using figures of speech or descriptions that he himself has coined.

One may object that they have no bearing on the correctness of a theory, but it is an empirical correlation: when the advocates of some theory have as their main argument what oxen the orthodox are, that theory is not likely to be a good contribution to knowledge, let alone a groundbreaking discovery.

Several of Farsight's and Brain Man's recent posts fit criteria 2 and 3 very well, like their recent ones in this thread. Complaining about how difficult it is to get published? Criterion 3. Distinguishing between hill-climbers and valley-crossers? Criterion 2.

I don't regard all colleagues as ignorant blockheads. I refer to a great number of people as "unsung heroes". It's professional physisicts who struggle to get their papers published. And I don't go after the famous, I don't talk in jargon, and I'm very keen on scientific evidence and empirical correlation.

Gardner explains criterion 4:

When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. This same defiance can be seen in a tendency to assert the diametrical opposite of well-established beliefs. Mathematicians prove the angle cannot be trisected. So the crank trisects it. A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. He builds one. There are many eccentric theories in which the "pull" of gravity is replaced by a "push." Germs do not cause disease, some modern cranks insist. Disease produces the germs. Glasses do not help the eyes, said Dr. Bates. They make them worse. In our next chapter we shall learn how Cyrus Teed literally turned the entire cosmos inside-out, compressing it within the confines of a hollow earth, inhabited only on the inside.

This doesn't apply to me, lpetrich. I side with Newton and Einstein.

Farsight's theory of time fits that pattern very well. Instead of motion being a function of time, time is a function of motion.

It goes back to Aristotle, it's a restatement of Presentism, and it's in-line with the Godel/Einstein view described in A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. And it fits the observational evidence. The notion of "time flowing" or "travelling through time" doesn't.

However, Farsight's and Brain Man's posts mercifully do not fit criterion 5.

I don't fit these criteria at all.

I don't have the patience to score Farsight's theories with John Baez's Crackpot index, but from a quick glance, some of it does more-or-less fit. Like:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

Looking at the other sets of criteria, Farsight's quoting of Maxwell and Einstein remind me of the Radners' and John Casti's criterion "Research by literary interpretation".

You can't respond adequately to the evidence and the references and the logic I present, so you resort to fatuous ad-hominem insinuations? That's not my way of doing or discussing science.

[ChildInAZoo]

I don't regard all colleagues as ignorant blockheads. I refer to a great number of people as "unsung heroes". It's professional physisicts who struggle to get their papers published. And I don't go after the famous, I don't talk in jargon, and I'm very keen on scientific evidence and empirical correlation.

The evidence is that you do not talk in jargon because you do not understand it. You have probably misused enough terms in the past to avoid using most jargon, though even here you have misused some terms. As for your view of others, you constantly belittle every poster and scientist that you do not agree with. You don't even bother to look at the work of the scientists that actually observe the things that you make (unsupported) predictions about.

This doesn't apply to me, lpetrich. I side with Newton and Einstein.

Aside from the fact that you get NEwton and Einstein wrong, this criteria does apply to you because you identify string theory and some other positions as the dominant science. Thus like other cranks you are attacking what you see as the dominant science of the day in favor of some older, more pure science.

I don't have the patience to score Farsight's theories with John Baez's Crackpot index, but from a quick glance, some of it does more-or-less fit. Like:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

Looking at the other sets of criteria, Farsight's quoting of Maxwell and Einstein remind me of the Radners' and John Casti's criterion "Research by literary interpretation".

You can't respond adequately to the evidence and the references and the logic I present, so you resort to fatuous ad-hominem insinuations? That's not my way of doing or discussing science.

The crackpot index is a good rule of thumb of ruling out people who do not have a good grasp of the physics they discuss. I found a fascinating link when I did an internet search for it.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi ... 9#p2110700

I checked myself out on this a while back:

A -5 point starting credit.
OK, I'm on -5.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
I don't make false statements. Sometimes people say "that's wrong", but they can't back it up.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
Not me.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
Definitely not me. My logic bites like a crocodile and it doesn't let go.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
Nope. I have made mistakes, and am willing to take it on the chin.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
Nope, I'm very keen on real experiments and empirical evidence and observation.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
OK, I'll take 5 points for RELATIVITY+, so now I'm on zero.

5 points for each mention of \"Einstien\", \"Hawkins\" or \"Feynmann\".
No chance.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
Quantum mechanics isn't misguided. The maths works. Some of the interpretations are however total pseudoscience. Or should I say: crackpot!

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
Nope.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
Nay lad.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don\'t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
Uh oh. I'm fairly public, but I have done this. Now I'm on 10 points.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
No way. I know that nothing is ever perfect.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
I am careful to avoid this sort of thing. I've come across it and thought "yeuw!"

10 points for each statement along the lines of \"I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations\".
Go on then, I've tried to interest mathematicians because I don't have time myself to do everything myself, and besides, I don't want to do them out of a job. Can't have them flipping burgers for a living! Now I'm on 20 points.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is \"only a theory\", as if this were somehow a point against it.
Since I've said string theory isn't even a theory, let's have another ten points. I'll wear that badge with pride. Running total: 30 points.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn\'t explain \"why\" they occur, or fails to provide a \"mechanism\".
Oh definitely. Oh yes oh yes oh yes. 40 points.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
Cough, much to my shame I have to give myself ten points for comparison. 50 points in total.

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a \"paradigm shift\".
Oh yeah, baby. 60 points. This is fun.

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it \"suppresses original thinkers\" or saying that I misspelled \"Einstein\" in item 8.
I have half a mind to do this. The guy is an airhead pseud who knows nothing. Hey John, you can't quantize gravity. Ask Smolin why not. "Higher categories", LOL!

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
In an unwise moment I did allow myself to be goaded and say the wrong thing here. Or so my Swedish friends tell me!

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
You know he spent his latter years working on light? Smart guy, Newton. Even greater than people realise. But I've never compared myself to the guy.

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
Geddoutofit. Time travel is science fiction. So are parallel worlds. Unseen dimensions are a myth, so are branes.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
Don't think so.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"hidebound reactionary\".
Nope.

20 points for each use of the phrase \"self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy\".
Naw.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)Not me.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
Definitely. The concept of field is no longer appropriate. 110 points.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
Aw FFS, that's ridiculous.

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.Now that is just a little bit nasty.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
Tsk. WTF is this guy on?

40 points for claiming that the \"scientific establishment\" is engaged in a \"conspiracy\" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
I'll take the 40 points. Running total 150 points. This happens all the time. Physics is far more of a competitive antheap than people think, and of course "science advances one death at a time". Take a look at page 53 of Graham Farmelo's book "The Strangest Man" and you can see how the guys at DAMTP were still sneering at Einstein in 1923: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/05712 ... eader-page

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case..
Nope. But I have mentioned Bruno. Does that count?

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
This is my nightmare scenario. You don't know how bad it's going to be. I'll take the 40 points. That's a running total of 190 points.

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
Not me.

OK, 190 points, where does that leave me? Leading edge? Thinking outside the box? Maverick? Uh, there's no readout. So I don't know. Duh. And that makes the whole thing a typical piece of sneering intellectual arrogance, and a total waste of time. Which is pretty much all we ever get from this dilettante mathematician pretending to be a physicist and just getting in the way. This is typical of the nonsense the guy has on his website: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... light.html.

A discerning reader will note that many of Farsight's responses to the criteria are mistaken.

[Farsight]

There's no mistake, and I quote Einstein and Newton correctly. Oh, and let me complete that post of mine for you. You seem to have truncated it:

OK, 190 points, where does that leave me? Leading edge? Thinking outside the box? Maverick? Uh, there's no readout. So I don't know. Duh. And that makes the whole thing a typical piece of sneering intellectual arrogance, and a total waste of time. Which is pretty much all we ever get from this dilettante mathematician pretending to be a physicist and just getting in the way. This is typical of the nonsense the guy has on his website:

Is the speed of light constant?

"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity...

...Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies".

This concedes that Einstein really was talking about a variable speed of light, and says it makes sense. Then later on it says it doesn't. So it not only contradicts Einstein, it contradicts itself.

The author doesn't even know that Einstein wrote the book in 1916, when it was published by Vieweg in Germany. It was translated into English in 1920 when it was published by Methuen. In the original German, Einstein said die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert which translates into the speed of light varies with the locality. He said what he meant.

[Brain Man]

back on subject research into time peception and the brain.

http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/time.html

[Brain Man]

Interesting questions arise from this debate are

Why does the average capable scientist face a hard time, no matter what new ideas he produces ? The answer is, so these ideas are tested. You get a hard time, in the same spirit as when you propose to play in any given area of endeavor.

What if group interests have taken over the scientific agenda as some of the links I have posted suggest they have. Social study of ingroup agendas show that ingroups tend to produce various levels of rejection, banishment and punishment by any means palatable to the group. The aim is to protect the culture that has grown within from alteration. It’s a basic drive. i.e. We are now punishing and banishing, rather than testing.

This forum itself was borne from an ingroup linked to the Richard dawkins, who is not so much a scientist, but a linguistically adept self appointed ingroup/outgroup leader for science vs athiests. Interestingly like the beginning of any ingroup formation the initial leaders tend not to care too much about their subjects in a democratic manner, which is how dawkins was with his forum. I am guessing this is because it takes a power seeking character to garner the individual all out focus to motivate and push for such a position. But what else is supposed to transpire considering we have populations now believing in science, and so its all entirely natural for matters to end up like this. That’s a separate issue. We are only discussing if the scientific process is being compromised here.

So if this hypothesis is true, that is the premise of science has been twisted by ingroup behaviour, (interstingly the kind of behaviour that gave rise to the rigidity of later organized religion), what we should expect to see is means and invitations to test theories replaced by ingroup agendas self organizing to give versions of science palatable to its members as scientific “reasons” but with a different aim, to give lip service to fundamental premises of science, but in reality to reject, banish and punish fundamental alterations to the groups information, which has now become a scientific culture. We all know what people will do to protect culture.

And this is precisely what some very well heeled people, award winners of the highest standard, think has happened in science today. Why does it take such people to make the statement ? They are stepping forward from inside the ranks using their status, because they are dealing with a problem being stated from inside by people they can respect who are having problems. Today when I am faced with people saying they have new theories, I simply cannot evaluate them on the basis of their standing within science anymore.

I have to consider now that all these independent theorists on the fringes might have something important, even if they cannot gain resources to express it technically. I would rather things were not this way as my workload increases exponentially. I am faced with the choice of accepting what is rejected by the mainstream and live with the nagging feeling fair and encouraging testing is not occurring, or entertain everything no matter its problems and look at it myself. For areas that concern me I have to do the latter as I simply cannot trust science to extract what could be good from todays pool of ideas.

This means that science is starting to collapse into itself under its own burden. I hope this will sort itself out in the next ten years or so, and have taken an interest in this to see what to expect. It may just be that the fundamental premise of the creativity of science does not scale well to large group proportion. The reason large groups cannot entertain too much creativity, is for many reasons, but summed in that it causes destabilization. The demand is on the increase by the populations for a version of science that does scale to its need, (more politicians citing studies to win a point).

The future of science is going to be very different to its beginnings then, and as already occurred is a slow creeping evolution from its previous form. The solution is that a reform might have to be devised for pure research, not for science to fight against the machinations of delusion (i.e. how it arose to fight religion). Going too far in that direction will inhibit any creativity, as you can basically label any novel idea, so what is required is a mechanism to protect the creative scientific core from the political tendencies of human groups themselves.

[Farsight]

back on subject research into time peception and the brain.

http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/time.html

Very interesting article, Brain Man. I've read about this sort of thing before, because I do have something of a side-interest in consciousness. It stems from my IT background, how optical illusions seem to say something about neuroscience, and observations of machine-like convictional behaviour. I don't know if it's of any relevance or interest, but I do seem to have extraordinarily fast reaction times.

[lpetrich]

Gardner explains criterion 4:

When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton. ...

This doesn't apply to me, lpetrich. I side with Newton and Einstein.

While misunderstanding them and quote-mining them, and refusing to acknowledge where they do not support your theories.

As ChildInAZoo pointed out, you fit the first part very well, though you take it a step further than the anti-Einstein crackpots of Gardner's day. In fact, one can recognize a progression:

1. Newton -> anti-Newton
2. Einstein -> anti-Einstein, restoring Newton
3. String theory -> anti-string-theory, restoring Newton, Einstein

Likewise with dark matter and Higgs particles.

As to the second part, you've advocated at least two inversions so far:

• Motion is not a function of time, but time a function of motion.
• Curved trajectories are not a result of curved space-time, but curved space-time a result of curved trajectories.

(John Baez's criteria, Radner-Casti criterion of "research by literary interpretation")

You can't respond adequately to the evidence and the references and the logic I present, so you resort to fatuous ad-hominem insinuations? That's not my way of doing or discussing science.

John Baez again:

10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

Your disdain for mathematics fits -- you seem to think that theories must be worked out nonmathematically to be worthwhile.

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

Your quote-mining of Einstein fits -- you keep on waving around his variable-c paper while ignoring that he eventually decided on a more general approach.

Research by literary interpretation: quote mining.

[Farsight]

LOL, I always have a laugh when I see "quote mining" trotted out to try to dismiss what Einstein actually said. Get lost lpetrich, you've got no counter-argument or counter-evidence or counter-logic, you've got nothing to counter Time Explained, and your feeble attempt to discredit make it all the more obvious.

Brain Man: very interesting. I'll get back to you.

[lpetrich]

LOL, I always have a laugh when I see "quote mining" trotted out to try to dismiss what Einstein actually said. Get lost lpetrich, you've got no counter-argument or counter-evidence or counter-logic, you've got nothing to counter Time Explained, and your feeble attempt to discredit make it all the more obvious.

Farsight, I dare you to read Albert Einstein's The Meaning of Relativity, pages 16-17, where he explains how Special Relativity treats space and time. I will quote a little bit from it to give you a summary of what Einstein thought:

Upon giving up the hypothesis of the absolute character of time, particularly that of simultaneity, the four-dimensionality of the time-space concept was immediately recognized. It is neither the point in space, nor the instant in time, at which something happens that has physical reality, but only the event itself. There is no absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space, and no absolute relation in time between two events, but there is an absolute (independent of the space of reference) relation in space and time, as will appear in the sequel. The circumstance that there is no objective rational division of the four-dimensional continuum into a three-dimensional space and a one-dimensional time continuum indicates that the laws of nature will assume a form which is logically most satisfactory when expressed as laws in the four-dimensional space-time continuum. Upon this depends the great advance in method which the theory of relativity owes to Minkowski. Considered from this standpoint, we must regard x1, x2, x3, t as the four co-ordinates of an event in the four-dimensional continuum.

In other words, space and time are coequal, and time is NOT derived from motion.

So think about that the next time you think about the nature of time.