Criticism of String Theory in The New Yorker

[Rodney]

Science has delivered the goods. Has philosophy? --Ba'al Chatzaf

It has delivered science. --Brant

Bravo, Brant. Edited May 19, 2007 by ashleyparkerangel

[Brant Gaede]

You can take philosophy and science and turn it into a chicken or egg first story, but science needs a certain type of philosophy to flourish out of the culture delineated by that philosophy. Science does not flourish in the Muslim world, for example.

If philosophy had no value, we should all only be talking about science here.

Just because most philosophy is garbage or a bunch of words has no effect on this, call it what you may: fact or supposition.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Science has delivered the goods. Has philosophy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

It has delivered science.

--Brant

Aristotle's nonsense on motion retarded physics for a thousand years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If Aristotle was that powerful, and I'm not saying he wasn't, you are affirming the power of philosophy or the need for a correct philosophy.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You can take philosophy and science and turn it into a chicken or egg first story, but science needs a certain type of philosophy to flourish out of the culture delineated by that philosophy. Science does not flourish in the Muslim world, for example.

--Brant

It did for a brief period, before the religious zealots extinguished the flame.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Science has delivered the goods. Has philosophy?

Ba'al Chatzaf

It has delivered science.

--Brant

Aristotle's nonsense on motion retarded physics for a thousand years.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If Aristotle was that powerful, and I'm not saying he wasn't, you are affirming the power of philosophy or the need for a correct philosophy.

--Brant

Indeed. And Aristotle's errors had a devastating effect on the development of physical (natural) science. Aristotle's major error was that he did not check his conclusions experimentally. Experimental verification of theories of natural processes was invented in the Renaissance, principally by Galileo.

It is interesting to note that every technology Galileo used except for lenses was available in the lifetime of Aristotle. In particular, Greek shipwrights could make good smooth straight boards that could have been used as inclined planes, which is the principle tool that Galileo used to study falling bodies. Rolling round things down a moderately slanted inclined plane slows the fall.

Now consider what Aristotle had to say about falling bodies. He said if body A is ten times heavier than body B, then body A would fall ten times faster. A kid tossing a pair of similarly shaped rocks but of differing weights from a high place could have put a spike through that error. The Apollo 15 astronauts dropped a hammer and feather while on the moon. Guess what? The hammer and the feather, dropped from the same height hit the ground at the same time. Score one for Galileo, zero for Aristotle. But the result was not startling. People knew that bodies of varying masses fall at the same rate in a gravitational field fir 300 years.

Aristotle taught that a force must be exerted on a body for it to move at all (he considered motion absolute, rather than relative). If so, then a arrow shot from a bow would fall straight down as soon as it lost contact with the bowstring. But it doesn't. It continues in an arc for some distance. That siimple observation would have put a spike through the hypothesis that force was required at all times that a body was in motion. As a result the world had to wait over 1800 years for the principle of Inertia, which is a basic element of Galileo's and Newton's mechanics.

And so on, and so on. Here is the bottom line. Aristotle did not check his premises very carefully. Aristotle's errors and defects did have an effect on the development of science. For example, Aristotle squashed Aristarchus' hypothesis that the earth revolved around the Sun (sound familiar?). He asserted that the earth stood still and everything moved about it. Aristotle insisted that the earth is motionless (it does not turn) so the stars must be affixed to a rigid frame that rotates about the earth once a day.

Aristotle's main contribution to knowledge and culture was the codification of logic and a naturalistic approach to phenomena (in spite of the errors in his theories). Aristotle gets an A+ for going out to meet nature face to face. He gets a C- or a D for checking out his theories. What is more, Aristotle did not see the -need- to check out theories empirically. He thought that passive observation would reveal a priori truths about the world. It took nearly two thousand years to discover the need for experimental verification and testing.

Many of the Greek thinkers made the error that if an argument seemed self evident, it had to be true. They had the Gift of Gab and were very much enamored with their cleverness. So much so that they did not see the need for empirical verification of conclusions drawn from theories based on observations in the first place. If the principles seemed axiomatic, that was good enough. But it really isn't. A prior thinking died hard. We are now 400 years into the Age of a Posteriori empirically based science. We came by it with great difficulty and travail. Look what happened to Galileo.

One of my favorite What-If fantasies is to ask how the world would be now if the empirical approach of the Ionian thinkers had prevailed rather than the a prior approach of the Athenians. Copernicus in the third century b.c.e! What would have happened if Archimedes had founded a school based on his methods and that school lasted for a time? I like to think we would be getting around in the Cosmos in Star Ships instead of flying jet airplanes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 19, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Bob, that's a very good, little essay, but I don't think Aristotle caused the Dark Ages or that Archimedes might have prevented them. Aristotle retarded science for sevedral hundred years, not 2000. I think the Roman Empire is the most responsible here--it literally killed Archimedes.

--Brant

Edited May 19, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, that's a very good, little essay, but I don't think Aristotle caused the Dark Ages or that Archimedes might have prevented them. Aristotle retarded science for sevedral hundred years, not 2000. I think the Roman Empire is the most responsible here--it literally killed Archimedes.

--Brant

Read the complete works of Archimedes translated by Thomas Heath. You will not see a single syllogism. His mode of proof is along more modern lines. Archimedes was not an Aristotelean and he checked his conclusions too! Archimedes relied on induction from passive observation. Archimedes got his hands dirty even though he disdained the effort.

Most of the damage was caused by Aristotle's acolytes who substituted what The Philosopher said, for what was Out There. I pains me to say that there are Objectivists who do the same sort of thing with Rand's pronouncements.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, that's a very good, little essay, but I don't think Aristotle caused the Dark Ages or that Archimedes might have prevented them. Aristotle retarded science for sevedral hundred years, not 2000. I think the Roman Empire is the most responsible here--it literally killed Archimedes.

--Brant

If you read -Plutarch's Lives- biography on General Marsellus you will find the General wanted Archimedes alive and well and working for -him-, the General. Think of Archimedes as Werner von Braun version 1.0. Fortunately, for Werner and the Space Program, one of our grunts did not kill Werner*

*Von Braun often said he aimed for The Stars but sometimes he hit London and Antwerep.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ You asked "What has philosophy delivered?" and Brant answered "Science." Your response was then about the faults of a philosopher, (more accurately, his dogmatic followers) and NOT about his (or anyone else's) philosophy. Aristotle's views on motion (or anything else) did not retard science's advancement (certainly not within his time; then, it WASN'T 'nonsense' [hindsight is so easy] anymore than pre-Einstein 'ether' nor even phlogiston was.) His views being held for centuries as not-to-be-questioned dogma by those finding his writings useful to their agendas is what did so (apart from some noted Persians). Might's well blame Newton for others not seeing the obvious re General Relativity thereby getting past the 'action-at-a-distance' prob.

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ You asked "What has philosophy delivered?" and Brant answered "Science." Your response was then about the faults of a philosopher, (more accurately, his dogmatic followers) and NOT about his (or anyone else's) philosophy. Aristotle's views on motion (or anything else) did not retard science's advancement (certainly not within his time; then, it WASN'T 'nonsense' [hindsight is so easy] anymore than pre-Einstein 'ether' nor even phlogiston was.) His views being held for centuries as not-to-be-questioned dogma by those finding his writings useful to their agendas is what did so (apart from some noted Persians). Might's well blame Newton for others not seeing the obvious re General Relativity thereby getting past the 'action-at-a-distance' prob.

LLAP

J:D

Unlike Aristotle, Newton -tested- his theories as well as was possible in his day. It was only when sufficiently sophisticated technology was developed much later that Newtonian mechanics was seen to be false. Newton accepted the experimental method gladly. Aristotle did not. Aristotle did not check. What is more, he did not think that he had to check.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

"Aristotle did not [test his theories]. Aristotle did not check. What is more, he did not think that he had to check."

Wrong on three of three counts. See the biological writings.

[BaalChatzaf]

"Aristotle did not [test his theories]. Aristotle did not check. What is more, he did not think that he had to check."

Wrong on three of three counts. See the biological writings.

Did Aristotle bother to open up human corpses to see how many ribs they really had?

What about teeth? Aristotle taught the women had few teeth than men.

What about heavier things falling faster than lighter things. Did he bother to experiment?

What about motion in the absence of force. Aristotle taught "unnatural" motion required a force. What about an object moving at constant speed in a straight line on a frictionless surface. Does its uniform motion require force. Did Aristotle check? Galileo checked the matter out experimentally. Aristotle had the same technology to make the tests as did Galileo. Namely straight smooth planks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Matus1976]

"Aristotle did not [test his theories]. Aristotle did not check. What is more, he did not think that he had to check."

Wrong on three of three counts. See the biological writings.

What about motion in the absence of force. Aristotle taught "unnatural" motion required a force. What about an object moving at constant speed in a straight line on a frictionless surface. Does its uniform motion require force. Did Aristotle check? Galileo checked the matter out experimentally. Aristotle had the same technology to make the tests as did Galileo. Namely straight smooth planks.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I countered many of these 'criticisms' of Aristotle in this post

[Matus1976]

Its as if physics has become a religion--A theological movement that preaches that you can only be saved if you believe that string theory died on the cross to save you from your dumbass assertions that the eath was the center of the universe.

Dodger, you are 17 years old?

--Brant

Yes indeed.

I apologize for my emotion filled post (I can write better), but its just I'm so sick of theoretical physics being tainted with these...morons.

It is one of my goals to eventually get a Ph. D in theoretical physics, but the more I hear about what these Ph. D holders are wasting their time doing, sometimes I think it would be more productive to be independant.

Brant, are you interested in hearing some of my physics endeavours?

It looks like we have a Quentin Daniels in the room, Bravo Dogder. I would be interested in hearing of some of your physics exploits, though I am only an amatuer myself. I hope you plan on doing something about how rediculously expensive it is to get into space, and how monstrously slow our ships are!?

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ Your primary condemnation ('scientifically'-speaking) was that Aristotle was not an 'experimentalist' (as few of his time were, of course) a la the later Galileo, Bacon, et al...in physics; he was merely an 'analyzer' who too often accepted the writings of others, correct?

~ Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, Einstein rowed the same boat (though not as comprehensively, ntl much deeper in his preferred territory) also, no?

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ Your primary condemnation ('scientifically'-speaking) was that Aristotle was not an 'experimentalist' (as few of his time were, of course) a la the later Galileo, Bacon, et al...in physics; he was merely an 'analyzer' who too often accepted the writings of others, correct?

~ Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, Einstein rowed the same boat (though not as comprehensively, ntl much deeper in his preferred territory) also, no?

LLAP

J:D

While Einstein developed theories starting with fundamental principles as opposed to theories that explain particular phenomena, Einstein, unlike Aristotle, understood the necessity of testing the theories. When he put forth his famous equation E = m*c^2, he mentioned how it might be tested using the disintegration of Uranium salts. How prophetic! Similarly he was very hot to have his prediction of light bending tested and the results made public. Einstein never doubted the correctness of General Relativity, but he realized that it had to be tested in order to be accepted.

Aristotle never appreciated the central importance of theory testing. He, like many Greek thinkers, were essentially a priorists. They believed that certain basic principles were apodictic and indefeasible prima facia. We have learned better, since then. Had Aristotle been more of an empiricist, he would have tested his assertion that heavy bodies (in general) fall faster than lighter bodies and he would have discovered that he was mistaken. It is trivial to falsify the assertion that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter bodies in proportion to their weight. A kid dropping a small lighter ball and a larger heavier ball from equal heights at the same instant would immediately that they land at virtually the same instant.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ I'm not aware where Einstein showed that he was 'hot' to have his theory tested. My view of him was that it didn't matter to him.

~ He clearly regarded Michelson-Morley's experiment as unnecessary (for him) 'confirmation' (though, clearly, mucho others hadn't) re the ether-conjecture; the (for others) eclipse-check re his prediction of gravitational-lensing affecting starlight differently from the original calculations of Newton (I believe when asked "Suppose it shows you're wrong?") he said something akin to "Then 'the Old Man' made a mistake." Ok; maybe not quite that arrogant-sounding, but, he wasn't all that concerned about experimental results, regardless that he founded some of his theory upon them (such as De Sitters' observatrions.)

~ Stephen Hawking, methinks, as I said before, rows the same boat. They pay attention to the 'observations' of others (as Aristotle did), but do not sit on tenterhooks awaiting confirmation of their...'theories.' Al was, and Stevie is, a theoretician, 1st and foremost, just like Ari.

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ I'm not aware where Einstein showed that he was 'hot' to have his theory tested. My view of him was that it didn't matter to him.

~ He clearly regarded Michelson-Morley's experiment as unnecessary (for him) 'confirmation' (though, clearly, mucho others hadn't) re the ether-conjecture; the (for others) eclipse-check re his prediction of gravitational-lensing affecting starlight differently from the original calculations of Newton (I believe when asked "Suppose it shows you're wrong?") he said something akin to "Then 'the Old Man' made a mistake." Ok; maybe not quite that arrogant-sounding, but, he wasn't all that concerned about experimental results, regardless that he founded some of his theory upon them (such as De Sitters' observatrions.)

~ Stephen Hawking, methinks, as I said before, rows the same boat. They pay attention to the 'observations' of others (as Aristotle did), but do not sit on tenterhooks awaiting confirmation of their...'theories.' Al was, and Stevie is, a theoretician, 1st and foremost, just like Ari.

LLAP

J:D

Here is a little snippet from the wiki article on Einstein:

In 1911, Einstein became an associate professor at the University of Zurich. However, shortly afterward, he accepted a full professorship at the Charles University of Prague. While in Prague, Einstein published a paper about the effects of gravity on light, specifically the gravitational redshift and the gravitational deflection of light. The paper appealed to astronomers to find ways of detecting the deflection during a solar eclipse.[24] German astronomer Erwin Freundlich publicized Einstein's challenge to scientists around the world (Crelinsten 2006).

Here is another snippet about the Einstein-Freundlich collaboration.

Freundlich was awarded a doctorate by the University of Göttingen for a thesis on analytic function theory in 1910. Klein suggested to Freundlich that he might wish to apply for a post as an assistant at the Royal Observatory in Berlin and his appointment was confirmed on 1 July 1910. Freundlich worked with Einstein in 1911 attempting to make the measurements of Mercury's orbit required to confirm the general theory of relativity. He confirmed it in a paper of 1913 but Freundlich had to go against the wishes of the Director of the Berlin Observatory who strongly advised him against publishing such a revolutionary idea. His plans for an expedition to the Crimea funded by Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach were made impossible by the outbreak of World War I. He wrote his first book in 1916 following Einstein's publication of the general theory of relativity. Freundlich's book Grundlagen der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie discussed the ways that the general theory of relativity could be tested by astronomical observations.

In 1918 Freundlich resigned his post in Berlin to work full time with Einstein. In 1920 the Einstein Institute was created as the Astrophysical Observatory in Potsdam and Freundlich was appointed as observer there in 1921. He was later promoted to chief observer and professor of astrophysics. In 1929 he observed a solar eclipse that yielded data intriguingly different from the Einstein prediction. His speculations on these data and on astronomical red shifts, published and defended during the last half of his life, are still controversial.

See entire article at.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/03032604.html

And this snippet:

Meanwhile, the debate over the gravitational redshift proceeded among the astrophysicists. Although Einstein, in this volume, continued to be convinced that the work of Leonhard Grebe and Albert Bachem had shown the way forward in how the solar redshift data should be interpreted (Vol. 9, Docs. 25 and 57), in practice he accepted that further detailed studies by the astronomers were needed for a final decision. If Einstein’s faith in the theory had ever been tested by the emphatic opposition of even such sympathetic solar astrophysicists as Willem Julius (Doc. 8), it was fully restored by the work of Grebe and Bachem. In this he differed from his colleagues, even from the most enthusiastic advocates of relativity theory, some of whom, such as Adriaan Fokker, were on the lookout for a more viable theory in relation to this test (Doc. 40). At the same time, Erwin Freundlich worked to replicate Grebe and Bachem’s work, and funds were raised for the Einstein Tower Solar Observatory, where Freundlich would expand his research, even while Einstein entertained reservations about his efforts to observe the gravitational redshift in the spectra of fixed stars (Doc. 101).

See article at:

http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/vol10_intro.htm

It sure sounds like Einstein wanted confirmation of his theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal:

~ I'm not aware where Einstein showed that he was 'hot' to have his theory tested. My view of him was that it didn't matter to him.

~ He clearly regarded Michelson-Morley's experiment as unnecessary (for him) 'confirmation' (though, clearly, mucho others hadn't) re the ether-conjecture; the (for others) eclipse-check re his prediction of gravitational-lensing affecting starlight differently from the original calculations of Newton (I believe when asked "Suppose it shows you're wrong?") he said something akin to "Then 'the Old Man' made a mistake." Ok; maybe not quite that arrogant-sounding, but, he wasn't all that concerned about experimental results, regardless that he founded some of his theory upon them (such as De Sitters' observatrions.)

~ Stephen Hawking, methinks, as I said before, rows the same boat. They pay attention to the 'observations' of others (as Aristotle did), but do not sit on tenterhooks awaiting confirmation of their...'theories.' Al was, and Stevie is, a theoretician, 1st and foremost, just like Ari.

LLAP

J:D

Here is a little snippet from the wiki article on Einstein:

In 1911, Einstein became an associate professor at the University of Zurich. However, shortly afterward, he accepted a full professorship at the Charles University of Prague. While in Prague, Einstein published a paper about the effects of gravity on light, specifically the gravitational redshift and the gravitational deflection of light. The paper appealed to astronomers to find ways of detecting the deflection during a solar eclipse.[24] German astronomer Erwin Freundlich publicized Einstein's challenge to scientists around the world (Crelinsten 2006).

Here is another snippet about the Einstein-Freundlich collaboration.

Freundlich was awarded a doctorate by the University of Göttingen for a thesis on analytic function theory in 1910. Klein suggested to Freundlich that he might wish to apply for a post as an assistant at the Royal Observatory in Berlin and his appointment was confirmed on 1 July 1910. Freundlich worked with Einstein in 1911 attempting to make the measurements of Mercury's orbit required to confirm the general theory of relativity. He confirmed it in a paper of 1913 but Freundlich had to go against the wishes of the Director of the Berlin Observatory who strongly advised him against publishing such a revolutionary idea. His plans for an expedition to the Crimea funded by Gustav von Bohlen und Halbach were made impossible by the outbreak of World War I. He wrote his first book in 1916 following Einstein's publication of the general theory of relativity. Freundlich's book Grundlagen der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie discussed the ways that the general theory of relativity could be tested by astronomical observations.

In 1918 Freundlich resigned his post in Berlin to work full time with Einstein. In 1920 the Einstein Institute was created as the Astrophysical Observatory in Potsdam and Freundlich was appointed as observer there in 1921. He was later promoted to chief observer and professor of astrophysics. In 1929 he observed a solar eclipse that yielded data intriguingly different from the Einstein prediction. His speculations on these data and on astronomical red shifts, published and defended during the last half of his life, are still controversial.

See entire article at.

http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/03032604.html

And this snippet:

Meanwhile, the debate over the gravitational redshift proceeded among the astrophysicists. Although Einstein, in this volume, continued to be convinced that the work of Leonhard Grebe and Albert Bachem had shown the way forward in how the solar redshift data should be interpreted (Vol. 9, Docs. 25 and 57), in practice he accepted that further detailed studies by the astronomers were needed for a final decision. If Einstein’s faith in the theory had ever been tested by the emphatic opposition of even such sympathetic solar astrophysicists as Willem Julius (Doc. 8), it was fully restored by the work of Grebe and Bachem. In this he differed from his colleagues, even from the most enthusiastic advocates of relativity theory, some of whom, such as Adriaan Fokker, were on the lookout for a more viable theory in relation to this test (Doc. 40). At the same time, Erwin Freundlich worked to replicate Grebe and Bachem’s work, and funds were raised for the Einstein Tower Solar Observatory, where Freundlich would expand his research, even while Einstein entertained reservations about his efforts to observe the gravitational redshift in the spectra of fixed stars (Doc. 101).

See article at:

http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/vol10_intro.htm

You should also read -God's Equation- by Amir Aczel. He shows some of the correspondence between Einstein and Freundlich. Einstein was busting a gut to have Freundlich verify the prediction about gravitational light bending in 1914. Unfortunately the Great War broke out and the crew which Freundlich sent out to observe light bending during an eclipse of the sun in the Crimea was rudely interrupted by the war. The crew was in danger of being shot as German spies since they were in Russian territory with lots of telescopes and cameras. There was much diplomatic finagling and the crew was released but their equipment was confiscated. Einstein was frustrated by this outcome and took it out on Freundlich (Einstein could be a very nasty man at times).

It sure sounds like Einstein wanted confirmation of his theory.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal: Addendum:

~ If I hadn't specifically clarified myself yet, re your persevering contempt about Aristotle (in pre-Baconian times), neither Einstein nor Hawking can really be properly considered as following in Francis Bacon's 'experimentalist' footsteps. 'Hands-on' empirical-testers, they've never been.

~ Indeed, nowadays (since Feynman's gone), who, worth paying attention to in cosmology and particle physics, is, would you say? (We're talking 'science', right? Not mere 'philosophy' [though Al had some views about scientists and philosophy, according to Wiki, interestingly].)

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Baal: Addendum:

~ If I hadn't specifically clarified myself yet, re your persevering contempt about Aristotle (in pre-Baconian times), neither Einstein nor Hawking can really be properly considered as following in Francis Bacon's 'experimentalist' footsteps. 'Hands-on' empirical-testers, they've never been.

~ Indeed, nowadays (since Feynman's gone), who, worth paying attention to in cosmology and particle physics, is, would you say? (We're talking 'science', right? Not mere 'philosophy' [though Al had some views about scientists and philosophy, according to Wiki, interestingly].)

LLAP

J:D

Einstein held several patents. One for a new type of refrigerator. That is not only hands on, it is cold hands on. Einstein also contributed to the development of lasers. I bet you didn't know that. Einstein was primarily theoretical, but he never become unglued from physical reality. In fact, in his early days he was only five inches from being a logical positivist. His definition of simultaneous events were based on specific measuring operations using light signals. Contrast this with Newton's Platonic version of time. Because of this operational approach it was realized that time is dependent on motion with respect to a frame of reference. That sounds like "hands on" to me. To put it briefly, Einstein was the first physicist to understand time and length in operational terms, rather than Platonic-Pythagorean abstract terms.

It was Einstein who showed why atoms must be real, and not merely hypothetical constructs in his famous paper on the Brownian Motion of small particles in water. You can't get more "hands on" than that and still be a theoretic physicist. Einstein even convinced Ernst Mach that atoms were real.

As Einstein got older he became more Platonic in his thinking which is why he disowned his brain-child, quantum theory (it was Einstein who put Planck's idea "on the map" by understanding the photo-electric effect).

I wish Stephen Speicher were still among the living. Stephen (a very bright fellow who will be missed) was rather an expert on Einstein and would have taken your position apart (but nicely and politely) nut from bolt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

You can take philosophy and science and turn it into a chicken or egg first story, but science needs a certain type of philosophy to flourish out of the culture delineated by that philosophy. Science does not flourish in the Muslim world, for example.

Check out the work of alHazen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen. He figured out how eyes work and he developed the basic optics for lenses. He lived in a Muslim domain while the intellectual light was still on. During these enlightened times, Muslim scholars made important contributions to natural science and mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

I wish Stephen Speicher were still among the living. Stephen (a very bright fellow who will be missed) was rather an expert on Einstein and would have taken your position apart (but nicely and politely) nut from bolt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wasn't he (Stephen Speicher) all hot about the theory of elementary waves (TEW)?

see http://www.speicher.com/tew.html

[BaalChatzaf]

I wish Stephen Speicher were still among the living. Stephen (a very bright fellow who will be missed) was rather an expert on Einstein and would have taken your position apart (but nicely and politely) nut from bolt.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Wasn't he (Stephen Speicher) all hot about the theory of elementary waves (TEW)?

see http://www.speicher.com/tew.html

Yes indeed. No one is perfect. Stephen may be been a bit obsessed by Little's crackpot theory, but he was an expert on Einstein. Apparently at Cal-Tech where Stephen worked they had a very extensive collection of Einsteinia (papers, articles etc) which Stephen read thoroughly. He also knew the General Theory of Relativity quite well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

Wasn't he (Stephen Speicher) all hot about the theory of elementary waves (TEW)?

see http://www.speicher.com/tew.html

With him died the last adherent of that theory (mr. Lewis himself possibly excepted).