Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

On Mass-Energy Equivalence

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 02 Jul 2012, 17:42
Please do not double post. You can adddress two people within the same reply.

Thank you
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 02 Jul 2012, 18:31
@Mabool, now I don't understand why one has to be political to accept dialectical materialism? Like I said I'm interested in the truth no matter where it's coming from. As I've said more than once, the main reason physics (reflecting the sorry state of society) is in the dead-end it finds itself nowadays is its non-dialectical description of motion. Physics nowadays describes motion as rest. Take Newton's second law -- it is a law of rest despite calling it a law of motion. It is a correct law but limited and needs to be expanded so that it really would become a description of motion. All starts here and this has brought about the non-scientific quantum mechanics for instance (Einstein's "theory" of relativity shouldn't even be mentioned since it is nothing but nonsense and science has no use for it whatsoever; elements of the formal machinery of quantum mechanics, however, can be used further in the correct mechanics). If we go along the correct path of developing Newton's laws we will not need the non-physical quantum mechanics and all that we now know about the microworld would be explained in classical terms. Take, for example, the experiments of Yves Couder from Paris University Diderot. They clearly show "quantum mechanical effects" on a macroscale. You should see, however, how these experiments are met by the mainstream. In one word -- dishonestly.

As for the ideological part, if you ask me this is the most important discussion of all. More important than discussing the intricacies of physics even. Although, knowing the basics of the scientific method and fluency in the details of science are a must, otherwise the ideological discussion will be barren and all kinds of incorrect ideas can be foisted subversively, appearing as correct ideology.

To me, the question is not that dishonesty is governing science nowadays. That is obvious. The main question is how to fight it, how to restore reason and accountability in science. Mind you, this problem has not only ideological ramifications, which are the most important, but also has purely practical aspect. For instance, utilities and other energy companies impose on society (through dishonest science) only certain ways of production of energy, especially ways which get us into constant wars abroad. USA is currently in two wars and a third is around the corner. In other words, the seemingly innocuous occupation of a scientist in fact bears a tremendous burden for the fate of the whole planet.

Or consider, for instance, the growth of the green movements which are in effect the tool of the monarchy. Recall what Prince Charles once said while in a boat in the harbor of Hong Kong, I think -- we all saw communism destroys nature, capitalism is also no good, as seen from the garbage in the water around us, the answer is monarchy (he didn's say it directly but it was implied) because only monarchy can save our planet.

The climate debates, the evolution vs. creationism debates and so on are quite slippery and categorical solutions are hardly possible in one stroke. Fortunately, in the case of Einstein's "theory" of relativity we can pinpoint directly the flaw with formulae and reason and there is no escape. No monarchy or what not can make nonsense become truth. That's why it is so powerful and the powers-that-be fear it the most and are squandering even the slightest mention of criticism towards it.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Jul 2012, 09:12
Future World wrote:
@Mabool, now I don't understand why one has to be political to accept dialectical materialism? Like I said I'm interested in the truth no matter where it's coming from.


My opinion is that while Marxism has been "nipped" into just its standard scientific implications (deprived its political implications) by many, and has been adopted by mainstream scientists in this manner, it is ultimately incoherent since it means refusing to go further from a certain point because of ideological reasons, ergo, it ultimately dishonesty and a fear of truth.

What I mean to say is that "Dialectical Materialism" cannot be divorced from its political implications, since it pretty much abolishes the concept of an "apolitical" view. To accept it means to assume oneself as being a social actor reproducing one's society according to a political schema. In a scientists' case, it means a critique of the institutions and the praxis by which his activity is carried out, the problems he tackles and the use given to his production.

I believe that you do this, but for all the talk of ideology, you seem to fall into a "conspiracy theory" of scientists as willful participants of the ideological barriers they place, instead of these ideological barriers being the result of social structures, and scientific worldviews being partly the result of these ideological barriers.

To be more precise, in the field of mathematics, Wittgenstein was quite explicit (more than in other sciences) on the social existence and social production of this science, and on the social link and "necessary conventionalism" between praxis and mathematics. I feel that his view makes a lot of the discusion here a non-issue.

Sorry for the long explanation I'm about to get into:

He says, Imagine two mathematicians stranded on an island. Both of them working on a theorem. The first says that P follows from Q, while the second says that R follows from Q. Which one is correct and how do we know?

This example is very clever, because you can't do it. You might say that mathematics is just one, so one of them has to be wrong, but how do you find out which? You can say consistency, but what if they both can prove their consistency? You're stuck. You're stuck because this is an absurd example, because in order to have mathematical knowledge means to have a society that uses it, and ultimately it is this society and the worldview it produces that which has the rules which determines which calculation is correct and which one is mistaken.

(In Marxist terms, praxis spawns reality as the steady background necessary for our survival and the reproduction of our society. This structure, which "gels" into a totality of channels of experience and rules, is consistent to the extent we need it to be consistent).

What I'm very muddily trying to say is that it is quite possible that relativity is incorrect, I don't know, but that is to be uncovered by science as it continues to be created, until it crashes headfirst into "reality". If we remember that reality is born out of social praxis, then we know then that as our interaction and mode of existence changes, then so will our science. Perhaps you are right, perhaps you are a small Galileo, what do I know? Like someone said: "Nothing can hush up an idea that arrives right on time".

As a Marxist, I know that science has ideological component, but I'm more concerned with the material circumstances themselves than with the ideological details. It is not just "they wrongly say x", but more "why do they wrongly say x?".

I don't know if I'm explaining myself correctly.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 03 Jul 2012, 11:54
@praxicoid, there are objective criteria, which have no societal roots, which determine the truth. It's a different story if the likes of Witgenstein are not willing to recognize them, led by purely opportunistic reasons. No wonder his credo allows him to lie if, in his view, telling the truth would harm him personally.

For instance, there is nothing societal in knowing that someone dead is not alive or that 1 + 2 = 3. When a condition of a problem is that there is one single body in one single system you know beyond a doubt, independent of practice or what the society is, that someone claiming that there are more than one bodies in that system, as a condition of that same problem, is wrong. These are examples of the absolute criteria of truth and this is where positivists fail. Thus, you can determine with full certainty, independent of practice, the type of society we're in or your personal definitions and the language you use, if I'm right or wrong with regard to Einstein's relativity.

On the other hand, maintaining falsehood to appear as truth does have social roots and the witgensteins of the world are employed (boosted to fame rather than ignored outright) to muddle that aspect, to conceal those roots, foisting the idea that said falsehood can be the essence of science itself, and is not merely a practice of the dishonest. I don't see why an objective analyst should side with such distorted view.

To me the most important question is not whether or not truth can be established unequivocally (it can) but how truth can prevail in society. The problem, as I see it, is that in modern societies science and its community is treated as something isolated in itself, existing on its own planet, having nothing to do with the rest of society, unaccountable to it. The only role of the society at large and its ideologues is to justify from their own perspective and political needs what scientific community has proclaimed as truth. That was the case in the former USSR and its politburo and the ideological cronies serving it, this is the case with the US Congress nowadays and its poppers, kuhns and wittgensteins. Nothing has changed in that respect and this treatment of science is not less destructive to the society nowadays than it was during the times of USSR, contributing big time to its demise.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Jul 2012, 17:49
Future World wrote:
there are objective criteria, which have no societal roots, which determine the truth.


But "objective" is a category that was established historically, by us. And any "objective criteria" is applied by us, again.

I'm not saying that these don't exist, or that somehow we "choose" what to believe, that's utter nonsense. What is undeniable is that truth is something that is the product of our social activity.

Like Marx said:

Quote:
The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking, in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking which is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.

(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /index.htm)

Marx is hardly falling into any type of conventionalism. What he's stressing, to me, is the immanence of knowledge as a human activity. The question of a mathematics that is "without us" is an idle question, because there's no "bird's eye view" or god's eye that can "see things as they really are". That's just Platonic nonsense.

None of this takes a dent away from the objective status of truth. These are meta-theoretical considerations. Consider this: scientificy, or the quality of being scientific of anything, could be said to be characterized by a self-reference, by a self-awareness (you don't just look at the problem, but look at how you're looking at the product); this isn't a trascendence, even if it means "placing yourself above" your activity, it means exactly being aware of your activity as a historic, social activity.

Thus, a scientist doesn't work with a "thing" he "finds" in nature; he forges the object of his study, he builds a model that helps explain how things work objectively in nature. If objective means independent from any particular consciousness, then I have to control the environment and all variables to abstract myself away from what I'm studying. Hence, the "objective" is a product of human activity.

Quote:
On the other hand, maintaining falsehood to appear as truth does have social roots and the witgensteins of the world are employed (boosted to fame rather than ignored outright) to muddle that aspect, to conceal those roots, foisting the idea that said falsehood can be the essence of science itself, and is not merely a practice of the dishonest. I don't see why an objective analyst should side with such distorted view.


Yes and no. Yes, there are truths that are hidden because of ideological reason, but no, that isn't done by saying that fasehood can bee the essence of science.

Ideology can be thought as the marks that the production process leaves on any product, including discourse, and obviously including science. This means that you don't have ideology on one side, and science on the other. "Pure" science is a fantasy, and ideology as pure falsehood is equally misguided. The ideological aspect is present in any scientific work, and it is up to us to recognize it. Science does it all the time by being explicit on its limitations, on its models, theories.

Quote:
To me the most important question is not whether or not truth can be established unequivocally (it can) but how truth can prevail in society.


That was exactly what I was saying. To me, you have to look at material circumstances. A discourse abstracted of its social circumstance is just a waste of time when it comes to investigating why certain ideas are adopted and others are not.

Quote:
The problem, as I see it, is that in modern societies science and its community is treated as something isolated in itself, existing on its own planet, having nothing to do with the rest of society, unaccountable to it. The only role of the society at large and its ideologues is to justify from their own perspective and political needs what scientific community has proclaimed as truth.


Agreed, but this isolation is ficticious.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 03 Jul 2012, 18:21
I disagree with Marx on this and think that this kind of thinking has led physics into the dead-end it is now. For fear of appearing "scholastic", the scientific method as practiced today is omitting one of its very important components -- analysis of logic in a given proposal, prior to subjecting it to practical test. It is not true that only pre-scientific method, the so-called "natural philosophy", needs to do that, while real modern science must put all proposals to experimental tests, to the test of practice, in order to verify their truthfulness.

On the contrary, analysis for internal consistency must precede any preparation for experimental testing. Internal contradictions in a theory (not dialectical contradictions inherent in the phenomenon -- specifically in motion and change) immediately render that theory invalid, prior to the test of practice. A proposal based on internal contradictions is nonsense and nonsense needs no further practical tests. Finding internal contradictions is not a product of social activity -- anyone should be able to discern them within or without the society. Had this wrong approach (of carrying out experiments at any rate) not been instilled in science, Einstein's "theory" of relativity would've been abandoned long ago because it is based on internal contradictions, it is nonsense. Thus, any talk that the "theory" has been proved experimentally is sheer propaganda -- its validity has never been, neither can it ever be proved. No experiment can explain away nonsense. Said violation of the scientific method, as insignificant as it may seem, has led to immense harm to science and society at large, both financially and ideologically. Furthermore, it is very hard to undo because it has penetrated so deeply into the fabric of society that its removal will cause other harms, as removal of brain cancer may kill the patient. It's a real challenge to find ways to rid society and science from it.

EDIT: I'd like to add regarding this
Quote:
The ideological aspect is present in any scientific work, and it is up to us to recognize it. Science does it all the time by being explicit on its limitations, on its models, theories.

Ideological aspect is undoubtedly present in the way science is practiced, pure science, real science, is devoid of such content. It is objective. The models and theories it uses, if correct, reflect that objective nature. It is not that juggling with wrong proposals will also pass for real science. It isn't. Such juggling is only allowed for ideological reasons, not reasons inherent in science itself.
Last edited by Future World on 03 Jul 2012, 18:30, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Jul 2012, 18:28
How is much of cosmology or topology given experimental testing? I think you're reading this the wrong way.

Look,

Quote:
Finding internal contradictions is not a product of social activity -- anyone should be able to discern them within or without the society.


How can this anyone discern anything "without society", that is, without the background that would allow him/her to read what it is being said, how to understand the equations involved, without language, really. These Robinson Crusoe fantasies are just fantasies.

A calculation is a doing, and this doing comes with an entire background of social structures, of language and so on.

EDIT:

I think you can find all kinds of examples of a phenomenon being found, and then various attempts being made to explain it. These are gaps that get filled out as science marches on. Caloric theory and Darwinian evolution are two examples, I think, of this.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 03 Jul 2012, 18:36
The point I'm making is that internal contradictions are independent of language and of society, for that matter, with its educational systems and so on. There are absolute truths which are not predetermined societally -- in other words that will become falseties in a different society. These truths, being absolute, are trivial and any proposal is still the more unacceptable if it counters them. If that's the case, that has to be recognized promptly and not allow societal games with wasteful experimental tests.
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 03 Jul 2012, 18:44
Quote:
I think you can find all kinds of examples of a phenomenon being found, and then various attempts being made to explain it. These are gaps that get filled out as science marches on. Caloric theory and Darwinian evolution are two examples, I think, of this.


I don't think caloric theory is an example defeating the point I'm making. For its time it has been acceptable because of the state-of-the-art. The fact that later it has been rejected is not because it is internally contradictory. It is not. It has been rejected because of new experimental findings. Einstein's "theory" of relativity has nothing to do with such kind of wrong theories. It is a unique example of a theory that is not even wrong. It is based on internal contradictions like no other promoted theory in the history of science, independent of what the status of knowledge may be at a given time -- it invalidates itself without reference to anything else.

As for Darwin's theory, it may not be correct in terms of details, as new findings come about, but it will always be correct, I think, as being evolutionary. No correct theory on the origin of species can be anything else but an evolutionary theory. I'm not an expert on Darwin's theory so, probably, I should not get into discussing it. As regards Einstein's "theory" of relativity I am categorical about it -- it is a bogus theory (it isn't even a theory) which has to be removed from science without a trace.

EDIT: Forgot to add this: Cosmology (not astronomy) should also go because it has no grounds without the bogus "relativity" theory. Cosmology, string theories, particle physics leading to Bosons, anything having as a basis the "theory" in question must be abandoned without delay if true science (not practiced science) is to experience progress.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Jul 2012, 18:58
On the "absolute" status of necessary statements, let's just agree to disagree. Since in my mind what you're saying are idle statements, it's not that big a deal. Reification is the product of material circumstances, and I'm more interested in changing those.

On relativity, if there was an inconsistency in Einstein's proposal, then it was up to later scientists to correct it (and I believe they have), just like Darwin was corrected. I don't know enough about it, but it looks like you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you really want this theory to vanish without a trace, you have to go beyond showing some inconsistencies in its original paper, since these can be corrected (and I believe they have). You have to destroy the model by making it superfluous, by explaining away its results and its implications within classical mechanics, and I don't think you've managed to do that.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 03 Jul 2012, 19:17
Quote:
On relativity, if there was an inconsistency in Einstein's proposal, then it was up to later scientists to correct it (and I believe they have), just like Darwin was corrected. I don't know enough about it, but it looks like you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


It's not the mere need to correct it, it has to be abandoned altogether. There's noting in that "theory" of any need for science. Unfortunately, it still has not been abandoned and some groups are still firmly holding on to it for societal reasons (their funding and priviliges due to it will disappear without it). Getting rid of that "theory" is by no means comparable to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There's no baby to begin with. All is bogus. Like I said, it cannot be compared to Caloric or Darwin's theory, for that matter.

Quote:
If you really want this theory to vanish without a trace, you have to go beyond showing some inconsistencies in its original paper, since these can be corrected (and I believe they have). You have to destroy the model by making it superfluous, by explaining away its results and its implications within classical mechanics, and I don't think you've managed to do that.


Mind you these are not just some inconsistencies. The flaws I'm finding are fatal and they don't allow considering it any further in any form. These flaws cannot be corrected in any way. The only correction is to remove that "theory" and restore the classical path of development in physics. These are grave problems I'm showing, not just some blemishes on the face of physics.

Also, there's no model to be destroyed by making it superfluous. There's nothing one can possibly hang on to in this so-called "theory". There are no physical results and no implications within classical mechanics. Nothing. There's nothing in this "theory" pertaining to physics. It is sheer propaganda and a result of social needs of a certain destructive elite, such as the ones I already mentioned. No science whatsoever. I think I've managed to show that conclusively, beyond a doubt.

As for the road to develop classical mechanics, I have a lot to say there too but it is beyond the scope of this conversation.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 03 Jul 2012, 19:39
If you were to point out at ideological reasons for its continued existence, you might have an argument, especially since it points at its social need.

But if you talk about a vast conspiracy, then, it sounds iffy to me. You don't see a wildespread conspiracy to defend phlogiston. What's the purpose? They just don't want to look bad for being mistaken? How many theories have been ruthlessly been torn apart?

What I originally said to you was that perhaps you were correct, and that perhaps you represented another more advanced viewpoint. But this happens within a social framework. Your abstraction of it blinds you to this. You might think you could travel back in time and teach calculus to the Greeks or dialectics to the Holy Roman Empire. It doesn't work that way, the ideas don't make sense to those societies; they have what they need, and as these needs grow, so do their sciences develop.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 03 Jul 2012, 19:43
As far as I know, this theory explains why nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, and GPS satellites work the way they do. Or rather, it has enabled us to build them, but that's probably the same thing. If the theory is wrong, why do these things work? If the theory was adequate enough to enable us to build these things, surely dismissing it would have been a terrible idea?

Quote:
teach ... dialectics to the Holy Roman Empire.


lol Hegel did that.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 03 Jul 2012, 20:55
Quote:
But if you talk about a vast conspiracy, then, it sounds iffy to me. You don't see a wildespread conspiracy to defend phlogiston. What's the purpose? They just don't want to look bad for being mistaken? How many theories have been ruthlessly been torn apart?


Again, phlogiston, caloric theory, aristotelian heliocentricism were found to be wrong due to advances in experimentation and thought. They are not internally contradictory (they are not outright nonsense as Einstein's "theory") and were acceptable during their times. The "theory" in question is a unique occurrence in science, when sheer nonsense has been imposed on society. Nonsense exists in society, it has existed since the beginning of society as a human structure. Never before, however, has nonsense been so deliberately imposed as a mainstream doctrine.

As for the social framework within which truth exists, I wouldn't give in support of such claim either dialectics or calculus. These are tools, methods, to search for the truth. The absolute truths I'm referring to don't need sophisticated tools such as these, which even bright people like Rose Lichtenstein has trouble using. Even the primitive caveman knew not to place his arm in the fire because it hurts. These absolute truths I'm referring to are outside of any social framework. A theory such as the discussed "theory" is at odds with such absolute truths. It is not that the "theory" in question is a particular worldview or a view of a phenomenon, as are heliocentricism or caloric theory, which later were found to be wrong through more sophisticated experiments. Said "theory" is the epitome of flaw.

Now, regarding conspiracies, this term has deliberately been loaded to trivialize it and protect whoever would employ such secret methods. This is a conspiracy itself. It is foisted that there cannot be a group of people who would sit around a table and devise subversive ways to promote their interests. I beg to differ on that and there are many documents, even now posted on the net after their secrecy term limits have expired, indicative of secret subversive efforts by groups of people to undermine legitimate critics of the "theory" and have the world see it their way. This is seen by letters to Beria or to the advisers of Hitler (who changed the initial negativism towards it), Roosevelt, Truman and so on. Even today, the ear of the President or the US Congress is had by specially designated people (members of the National Academy of Sciences) which have been chosen specifically because of their loyalty to the doctrines of the current practiced science (not the truth), in particular, for their loyalty to the discussed "theory". Anyone outside of these approved speakers is ignored by the powers that be and, as a consequence, by the population at large, no matter what arguments he or she provides. This is the very essence of power and you may call it whatever you please but it is what dictates on society what is and what isn't (speaking of a totalitarian system). This is an area of the social studies of science which needs a special honest research, even if the real mechanisms will remain forever hidden, as is the case in every subversive activity.

Why was this conspiracy necessary? I touched on that in my earlier posts but I'm sure much more has to be understood in this respect. Personal financial interest may be part of it but I'm sure it isn't the main reason. There are deeper ideological reasons for such deliberate muddling of society.

Quote:
As far as I know, this theory explains why nuclear bombs, nuclear power stations, and GPS satellites work the way they do. Or rather, it has enabled us to build them, but that's probably the same thing. If the theory is wrong, why do these things work? If the theory was adequate enough to enable us to build these things, surely dismissing it would have been a terrible idea?


This is an outright lie and that lie has been promoted through vigorous propaganda to the great detriment of science and society. The things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with the discussed "theory". Lise Meitner has discovered fission due to completely different reasons unrelated to Einstein's "theory" of relativity. Technological advances such as GPS, Computers, washing machines or iPhones also have nothing to do with that theory. These devices work due to reasons outside of the framework of our discussion. There are many engineering advances, such as the ones you mentioned, which have arrived due to no theory whatsoever. As you probably know engineers use the so-called empirical formulae, which come about due to no theory at all. They are gathered in sometimes bulky handbooks and have found their place there due to purely practical reasons. These are not scientific formulae, however. In order to be scientific they have to have been derived based on certain premises which comprise a specific view of nature. If that view of nature is correct, then the formulae derived on its basis have to have a predictive value and there should not be even one single experiment that would yield results at odds with them, let alone that they should not be internally contradictory (should not be nonsense clothed in mathematical form).

Contrary to what propaganda says, ridding science of the bogus "theory" will open up resources for really fruitful work in science, benefiting society at large. It is even more cynical to see these billions wasted institutionally on ridiculous nonsense in CERN, bleeding off the taxpayers of tens of countries, when there is so much poverty and hungry children in these same victimized by CERN countries. At least the US Congress had some sense a decade or so ago to stop such kind of waste (I'm referring to the supercollider which was to be built around Washington, DC, whose funding was stopped by the Congress).

Once again, please DO NOT double post. You can address two people within the same post, and you can hit the "edit" button to add anything you forgot.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 04 Jul 2012, 19:07
Future World wrote:
Now, regarding conspiracies, this term has deliberately been loaded to trivialize it and protect whoever would employ such secret methods. This is a conspiracy itself. It is foisted that there cannot be a group of people who would sit around a table and devise subversive ways to promote their interests. I beg to differ on that and there are many documents, even now posted on the net after their secrecy term limits have expired, indicative of secret subversive efforts by groups of people to undermine legitimate critics of the "theory" and have the world see it their way. This is seen by letters to Beria or to the advisers of Hitler (who changed the initial negativism towards it), Roosevelt, Truman and so on.


Forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

What letters to Beria, Hitler and so on? Please provide a source for these claims.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 04 Jul 2012, 21:06
Will have to look for the link regarding the unclassified letter to Beria by a number of Soviet physicists denouncing a letter which criticizes Einstein's relativity which a Russian academic has submitted to "Krasnaya Zvezda" newspaper. That academician (forgot his name), has expressed in a letter to Beria his amazement as to how is it that a newspaper in the most democratic country (USSR) should stall the publishing of his submission. I think he didn't get a reply from Beria and now we know why. Like I said, I have to find the link which I came upon probably 5 or 6 years ago.

To see how the propaganda machine works, and now this I have at hand, is to take a look at the publication "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein) which is given as an example of the anti-semitic attack at Einstein during the Hitler years. However, a simple inspection reveals that the authors are not only not 100 but are even less that 50. Moreover, the editor's name is Israel and this sounds pretty jewish to me to construe this publication as an antisemitic attack.

In recent years I have not paid attention to this (sociological and ideological) aspect of the question because I was and am occupied with the essence of the problem but I should probably pay more attention to it at this point. I agree with you that that aspect is very important and should not be overlooked but should be studied carefully.
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 04 Jul 2012, 23:07
@praxicoide, read, for instance, this link:

http://russcience.euro.ru/document/letters/fock52.htm

The view expressed is obviously from the point of view of an advocate but can give you some insight. I'm still looking for the originals I mentioned.

EDIT: Even the link above may be enough because now I see that they have published some of the classified exchange. Notice, it hasn't been an open debate neither has a critic been given a forum to expose his views. Everything with regard to suppressing the criticism has occurred secretly, subversively, through conspiracy, as you would put it. We now know about this exchange only due to partial declassification of some of the soviet archives.
Soviet cogitations: 79
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 May 2012, 00:59
Unperson
Post 06 Jul 2012, 17:51
Mkay,

It's been suggested you read the rules here. you didn't and then you break another one that could get more than one or two people in trouble.

So,

Since I don't have time for this,




that is all

171
Soviet cogitations: 231
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2010, 22:13
Ideology: Trotskyism
Pioneer
Post 07 Jul 2012, 13:14
Future:

Quote:
I am apolitical and came here to this forum just to argue the incorrect points Rosa Lichtenstein has made about dialectical materialism.


But you failed even to do that. All we got from you were a series of dogmatic assertions (which you couldn't or wouldn't substantiate, but kept repeating in the fond hope that repetition would be taken as proof), all the while ignoring my proof that if this theory of yours were true, change and motion would be impossible.

You haven't even explained what a 'dialectical contradiction' is (despite being asked to do so many times)!

-------------------------

Mods: I'm sorry, I posted this before I realised FW had been banned!

By the way, what does a yellow card imply? How long do they last, for example? I tried to find out in the rules, but there is nothing there about them, and I'm not allowed to post PMs to ask anyone!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 08 Jul 2012, 23:27
They vary, but they usually last a week.

A yellow card is a warning, just like the ones you see in football. You can continue to post and carry on as usual, but with the added caution that a second infraction could escalate your yellow to a red card (suspension from the board, also usually about a week, though that varies also).

There is a forum called "Let's work harder, comrades" where you can ask anything regarding how the board functions and where you can make suggestions on this topic, too.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.