Changes

:''I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!''

:''I am not getting anything out of the meeting. I am learning nothing. Because there are no experiments this field is not an active one, so few of the best men are doing work in it. The result is that there are hosts of dopes here (126) and it is not good for my blood pressure: such inane things are said and seriously discussed here that I get into arguments outside the formal sessions (say, at lunch) whenever anyone asks me a question or starts to tell me about his "work". The "work" is always: (1) completely un-understandable, (2) vague and indefinite, (3) something correct that is obvious and self evident, but a worked out by a long and difficult analysis, and presented as an important discovery, or, a (4) claim based on the stupidity of the author that some obvious and correct fact, accepted and checked for years, is, in fact, false (these are the worst: no argument will convince the idiot), (5) an attempt to do something probably impossible, but certainly of no utility, which it is finally revealed at the end, fails (dessert arrives and is eaten), or (6) just plain wrong. There is great deal of "activity in the field" these days, but this "activity" is mainly in showing that the previous "activity" of somebody else resulted in an error or in nothing useful or in nothing promising. It is like a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other. Remind me not to come to any more gravity conferences!''

Apparently the situation in gravitation and cosmology changed a lot since Feynman's times but '''relativists''' still behave as if they held monopoly on scientific truth (see problems with publishing my one page paper ''"Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe"'' abolishing the idea of Big Bang, by deriving [[cosmological redshift]] together with [[Hubble constant]] as it is observed, which was not even put through a peer review process since 1986 when the only referee who discused my paper with me for weeks, being not able to refute it, recommended the rejection of the paper as not being interesting enough to readers of ''"Physical Rewiew Letters"'' <ref>Presently the access to this paper is still blocked on University of Warsaw, physics server (where I do my PhD work in general relativity) check the access [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm here]</ref>).

Apparently the situation in gravitation and cosmology changed a lot since Feynman's times but '''relativists''' still behave as if they held monopoly on scientific truth (see problems with publishing my one page paper ''"Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe"'' abolishing the idea of Big Bang, by deriving [[cosmological redshift]] together with [[Hubble constant]] as it is observed, which was not even put through a peer review process since 1986 when the only referee who discused my paper with me for months, being not able to refute it, recommended the rejection of the paper as not being interesting enough to readers of ''"Physical Rewiew Letters"'' <ref>Presently the access to this paper is still blocked on University of Warsaw, physics server (where I do my PhD work in general relativity) check the access [http://www.fuw.edu.pl/~wjast/160.htm here]</ref>) so for the time being I made in available [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Hubble_redshift_in_Einstein%27s_universe here].

==References==

==References==