FIERCE DOUBLETHINK IN EINSTEINIANA

[Pentcho Valev]

Lee Smolin wholeheartedly fights the idiotic concept of time introduced by special relativity:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

Lee Smolin wholeheartedly defends the idiotic concept of time introduced by special relativity:

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/apr/17/time-reborn/
QUESTION: Setting aside any other debates about relativity theory for the moment, why would the speed of light be absolute? No other speeds are absolute, that is, all other speeds do indeed change in relation to the speed of the observer, so it's always seemed a rather strange notion to me.
LEE SMOLIN: Special relativity works extremely well and the postulate of the invariance or universality of the speed of light is extremely well-tested. It might be wrong in the end but it is an extremely good approximation to reality.
QUESTION: So let me pick a bit more on Einstein and ask you this: You write (p. 56) that Einstein showed that simultaneity is relative. But the conclusion of the relativity of simultaneity flows necessarily from Einstein's postulates (that the speed of light is absolute and that the laws of nature are relative). So he didn't really show that simultaneity was relative - he assumed it. What do I have wrong here?
LEE SMOLIN: The relativity of simultaneity is a consequence of the two postulates that Einstein proposed and so it is deduced from the postulates. The postulates and their consequences are then checked experimentally and, so far, they hold remarkably well.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/time-reborn
71:04 : QUESTION: What you did not talk about was time dilation, the myth of time dilation, I think that needs to be blown as well. What do you think of that? LEE SMOLIN: I disagree. This is an important point. Special relativity may be superseded but it is holding up enormously well under experiment. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia is here... and he and various friends of ours have been trying to transcend special relativity for years and we are keeping knocked back by experiment... and the experiments have shown that special relativity is true to tremendous precision... Do you agree Giovanni? Yea!

Smolin's state of mind is typical of Einsteiniana; George Orwell calls it "doublethink":

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4611948391_4122552b04_z.jpg

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

"But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
Philip Ball: "Two writers argue that modern science needs to get a grip on reality, rejecting 'timeless' theories of the universe and the 'fairytale' physics of string theory. Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

"Rejecting 'timeless' theories" ?!? That is, rejecting special relativity? Philip Ball, a palace journalist and faithful Einsteinian, has been attacking special relativity for a couple of years:

http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-discover-emc2.html
Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that."

Obviously special relativity is doomed and high priests in Einsteiniana don't waste time:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_45GnkHLOfyA/TClEb8j-yAI/AAAAAAAAA48/Sz82Y_ZwGvs/s1600/Ratosdenavio.png

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html
John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. (...) Careful attention to the differing judgments of simultaneity of the two twins shows that there is nothing paradoxical in the twin effect. The brief moment of acceleration of the traveling twin completely alters the traveler's judgments of simultaneity and this alteration is key to seeing how relativity provides a consistent account of the effect. Nevertheless, many still get confused by the twin effect."

The acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for her youthfulness:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Why do Einsteinians teach that the acceleration suffered by Jill is both responsible and not responsible for her youthfulness? Because that's the way ahah ahah they like it, ahah ahah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEyfr10lgNw

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's most blatant lie: the addition of velocities predicted by Newton's emission theory of light contradicts the principle of relativity:

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V."

John Norton teaches the same blatant lie:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html
John Norton: "Imagine that a machine that can fire particles at 100,000 miles per second, which is more than half the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. Now we will try to push things past the speed of light. Imagine that the machine is placed on a spaceship that also moves at 100,000 miles per second in the direction that the machine fires the particles; that is, it moves at this speed with respect to a second observer on the earth. So, let us ask the obvious question. What will the earth bound observer find for the speed of the particle? The calculation seems irresistible. The spaceship moves at 100,000 miles per second with respect to the earthbound observer; and the particle moves at 100,000 miles per second with respect to the spaceship. So... 100,000+100,000=200,000?? But that would be faster than the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second. Prohibited by the Principle of Relativity. To see that the principle of relativity prohibits this faster than light outcome, imagine that a light signal passes the particle emitting machine at the moment that the particle is emitted. The observer moving with the machine would (obviously) judge that the light signal overtakes the particle. Now imagine this same process viewed by the the Earthbound observer. That observer must also see the light signal overtake the particle. It is just the one experiment, so both observers must judge the same outcome. What else would you expect? Might it be that the light signal would overtake a particle emitted by the machine, when the machine is on earth. But when the machine emits on a rapidly moving spaceship, then the particle overtakes the light? That is exactly what the principle of relativity prohibits! For then we have an experiment that can detect absolute motion. The resting machine emits particles that don't overtake light; the rapidly moving machine emits particle that do overtake light. The principle of relativity demands that the experiment must proceed in the same way when carried out on earth or a rapidly moving spaceship."

John Norton is one of the cleverest Einsteinians - he knows perfectly well that Newton's emission theory of light does not contradict the principle of relativity. Yet his argument sounds even sillier than Einstein's original one. And Norton seems to believe in what he's teaching. How is that possible? George Orwell explains the paradox:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev