Archive for March, 2012

Einstein’s mistake and CERN experiment

Saturday, March 24th, 2012
For the last six months I have been repeatedly answering the question about superluminal neutrinos. I post below one such response from Sept 2011.
Einstein was, of course, wrong, but not for this reason. He (and most other physicists after him) wrongly thought relativity matters only for speeds close to light. That is true only for the one body problem. For the many body problem, relativity matters even at lower speeds. Einstein never understood this subtle mathematical point all his life.
CERN is wrong because the claim about superluminal neutrinos is conceptually confused. (But, of course, Western journalists superstitiously believe in the authority of CERN, “God particle” and all that. They have the money, so they must be right.)
—————email of 26 September—–
The point I made is that theory of relativity starts off by defining a clock. There is no God-given time out there to be measured, as Newton wrongly thought.
So what clock should one use?
If you do not know exactly how to measure time, you cannot measure velocity either, so it is meaningless to speak of velocities greater than that of light.
To understand the first thing about relativity, you must understand this point. (more…)

Swaraj in thought

Saturday, March 17th, 2012

Colonialism used church propaganda to inculcate the myth of Western superiority among the colonised. It is high time to break this dirty and evil myth, which is still propagated by our schools and universities.  Had the British not got Mahatma Gandhi assassinated (through Savarkar), to ensure Nehru’s supremacy, we would have got real freedom, real swaraj. Not Hind Swaraj, not Swaraj in Ideas, but swaraj in thought

My paper on swaraj in thought was presented at the 35th Indian Social Science Congress, Wardha in Dec 2011. What a pity that the vice chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi University is a police official.



Secret refereeing: quality control or thought control?

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

Many people think that the system of secretive refereeing (euphemistically called “peer review”) serves as a system of quality control. Whole groups of nations (such as the Organization of Islamic Conference) have formed their science policies on the basis of that belief. (See my paper on “Benchmarking science” for the USM-PSU conference at Hat Yai, October, 2011.)

But, what is the scientific evidence that such secretive refereeing serves the purpose of quality control?