EINSTEINIANA: INCREDIBLE DISHONESTY

[Pentcho Valev]

John Norton teaches this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

But John Norton teaches this as well:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "An emission theory fails. So Einstein would have found
himself in an impossible position. The speed of light cannot vary with
the speed of the emitter; presumably it must be a constant, as
Maxwell's theory had urged all along. Yet in addition, Einstein was
convinced that the principle of relativity must obtain in
electrodynamic theory. How can both obtain? They require the speed of
light to be the same for all inertial observers? The footnote already
quoted above points us to Einstein's next step. "The difficulty to be
overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum,
which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of
[jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the
arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." The key to the puzzle is
the relativity of simultaneity. If Einstein gives up the absoluteness
of simultaneity, then the principle of relativity and the constancy of
the speed of light are compatible after all. The price paid for the
compatibility is that we must allow that space and time behaves rather
differently than Newton told us."

George Orwell explains John Norton's behaviour:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
***@yahoo.com

[Mike Jr]

On Jan 27, 12:44 am, Pentcho Valev <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]

Please, get a clue.
http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-pure-reason.txt

--Mike Jr.

[Pentcho Valev]

Einsteinians looking for the most idiotic explanation of length
contraction, the miraculous consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity_files/SHPMPFitzGerald.pdf
"In Physical Relativity, Harvey R. Brown boldly elucidates a mainly
constructive account of special relativity. His project builds upon
the works of earlier "trailblazers" and "unconventional voices."
Foremost among them is FitzGerald, who in 1889 proposed that moving
bodies deform, to account for the null results of Michelson's
interferometer experiment. Contrary to most histories of relativity,
Brown reasonably argues, as he has before (2001), that actually there
is no evidence that FitzGerald expected only a contraction along a
body's direction of motion. Indeed, his prominent contemporaries, such
as Oliver Lodge and H. A. Lorentz, did not present the hypothesis in
that way either; since they acknowledged that a transverse axis of the
body could well expand slightly to contribute also to Michelson's net
result. What appeals to Brown about FitzGerald's account is that it
involved, from the start, the expectation that the deformation might
be caused by alterations in the molecular forces within the moving
body. Brown entirely rejects the original justification: that such
alterations were caused by an ether. He also rejects the more recent
notion that such alterations are caused as bodies conform to a space-
time substratum. Instead he argues that the dynamical equilibrium and
cohesion of the constituents of any body are altered by accelerations
and remain altered during inertial motion."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

John Norton teaches this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

But John Norton teaches this as well:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "An emission theory fails. So Einstein would have found
himself in an impossible position. The speed of light cannot vary with
the speed of the emitter; presumably it must be a constant, as
Maxwell's theory had urged all along. Yet in addition, Einstein was
convinced that the principle of relativity must obtain in
electrodynamic theory. How can both obtain? They require the speed of
light to be the same for all inertial observers? The footnote already
quoted above points us to Einstein's next step. "The difficulty to be
overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum,
which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of
[jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the
arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." The key to the puzzle is
the relativity of simultaneity. If Einstein gives up the absoluteness
of simultaneity, then the principle of relativity and the constancy of
the speed of light are compatible after all. The price paid for the
compatibility is that we must allow that space and time behaves rather
differently than Newton told us."

George Orwell explains John Norton's behaviour:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Einsteiniana's most blatant lie: as you start moving against waves,
the wavelength decreases and the speed of the wave remains constant
relative to you. The lie is shocking but the gullibility of the
scientific community is even more shocking:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Another blatant lie of Einsteiniana's:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Unless Stephen Hawking is very stupid, he knows (all clever
Einsteinians know) that the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment is consistent with Newton's emission theory of light
according to which the speed of light varies with both the speed of
the light source v (c'=c+v) and the gravitational potential V (c'=c
(1+V/c^2)). Hawking must also know that, initially, Einstein used the
emission theory equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), then replaced it with c'=c
(1+2V/c^2). So, according to Einstein's general relativity, the speed
of light is VARIABLE, not constant, in a gravitational field:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf).
It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteiniana's most blatant lie: as you start moving against waves,
the wavelength decreases and the speed of the wave remains constant
relative to you. The lie is shocking but the gullibility of the
scientific community is even more shocking:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Teaching blatant lies at Imperial College (interpreting the Michelson-
Morley experiment in this way suggests incredible dishonesty, unless
Magueijo is very stupid):

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed!"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Another blatant lie of Einsteiniana's:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Unless Stephen Hawking is very stupid, he knows (all clever
Einsteinians know) that the null result of the Michelson-Morley
experiment is consistent with Newton's emission theory of light
according to which the speed of light varies with both the speed of
the light source v (c'=c+v) and the gravitational potential V (c'=c
(1+V/c^2)). Hawking must also know that, initially, Einstein used the
emission theory equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), then replaced it with c'=c
(1+2V/c^2). So, according to Einstein's general relativity, the speed
of light is VARIABLE, not constant, in a gravitational field:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf).
It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

"THE LIE ALWAYS ONE LEAP AHEAD OF THE TRUTH" (John Norton concludes
that, after all, time is an illusion as Divine Albert has said and the
geometry of space-time is the one predicted by Divine Albert's Divine
Theory):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html
John Norton: "This special role for the speed of light sometimes
arouses special wonder. What is so special about light, we may be
drawn to ask, that everything else takes such special note of it? Once
one starts along this path, all sorts of confusions may arise. Is it
that light is used for communication and finding things out? Does
everything somehow respond to how we find things out? Does special
relativity still work in the dark? Well--you can forget all this
mystical mumbo-jumbo, if ever it attracted you. There is nothing
special about light. It's space and time that is special. They have
properties we don't expect. Space and time are such that rapidly
moving objects shrink and their processes slow down. For a long time,
we didn't notice these effects because we did not have a thorough
account of a probe of space and time that moves very fast. That
changed in the nineteenth century when we developed good theories of
light. It is the probe that moves very fast and, for the first time,
begins to reveal to us that space and time are not quite what we
thought."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

John Norton teaches this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

But John Norton teaches this as well:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "An emission theory fails. So Einstein would have found
himself in an impossible position. The speed of light cannot vary with
the speed of the emitter; presumably it must be a constant, as
Maxwell's theory had urged all along. Yet in addition, Einstein was
convinced that the principle of relativity must obtain in
electrodynamic theory. How can both obtain? They require the speed of
light to be the same for all inertial observers? The footnote already
quoted above points us to Einstein's next step. "The difficulty to be
overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum,
which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of
[jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the
arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." The key to the puzzle is
the relativity of simultaneity. If Einstein gives up the absoluteness
of simultaneity, then the principle of relativity and the constancy of
the speed of light are compatible after all. The price paid for the
compatibility is that we must allow that space and time behaves rather
differently than Newton told us."

George Orwell explains John Norton's behaviour:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

The Original Lie:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june232009/einstein_lessons_dj_6-22-09.php
"For those of us who believe in physics, this separation between past,
present and future is only an illusion, however tenacious" - Albert
Einstein

Einsteinians sillier than John Norton are not among "the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink":

http://www.geekitude.com/gl/public_html/article.php?story=20050422141509987
Brian Greene: "I certainly got very used to the idea of relativity,
and therefore I can go into that frame of mind without it seeming like
an effort. But I feel and think about the world as being organized
into past, present and future. I feel that the only moment in time
that's really real is this moment right now. And I feel [that what
happened a few moments ago] is gone, and the future is yet to be. It
still feels right to me. But I know in my mind intellectually that's
wrong. Relativity establishes that that picture of the universe is
wrong, and if I work hard, I can force myself to recognize the fallacy
in my view or thinking; but intuitively it's still what I feel. So
it's a daily struggle to keep in mind how the world works, and
juxtapose that with experience that [I get] a thousand, even million
times a day from ordinary comings and goings."

http://www.evene.fr/celebre/actualite/2005-annee-einstein-114.php
"Les articles parus en 1905 dans la revue 'Annalen der Physik'
révolutionnent non seulement le petit monde de la physique, mais aussi
la perception commune de grands concepts tels que le temps, l'espace
ou la matière. Enfinils auraient dû car si les théories einsteiniennes
sont aujourd'hui admises et célébrées partout dans le monde
scientifique, si une grande partie de la recherche fondamentale a pour
objectif de les développer, le commun des mortels continue cependant à
parler du temps, de lespace, et de la matière comme il le faisait au
XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour, physicien et
auteur dun ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein métait conté',
dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix Nobel. "Loin
davoir été assimilées par tout un chacun", écrit-il, "les révolutions
einsteiniennes sont simplement ignorées." Car les découvertes dont on
parle dépassent de très loin - comme souvent - les préoccupations
purement scentifiques. Il est, de fait, encore extrêmement complexe et
ardu de comprendre la notion de temps non pas comme un flux, un
absolu, mais comme un relatif, pouvant ralentir selon la vitesse de
lobservateur."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

"THE LIE ALWAYS ONE LEAP AHEAD OF THE TRUTH" (John Norton concludes
that, after all, time is an illusion as Divine Albert has said and the
geometry of space-time is the one predicted by Divine Albert's Divine
Theory):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html
John Norton: "This special role for the speed of light sometimes
arouses special wonder. What is so special about light, we may be
drawn to ask, that everything else takes such special note of it? Once
one starts along this path, all sorts of confusions may arise. Is it
that light is used for communication and finding things out? Does
everything somehow respond to how we find things out? Does special
relativity still work in the dark? Well--you can forget all this
mystical mumbo-jumbo, if ever it attracted you. There is nothing
special about light. It's space and time that is special. They have
properties we don't expect. Space and time are such that rapidly
moving objects shrink and their processes slow down. For a long time,
we didn't notice these effects because we did not have a thorough
account of a probe of space and time that moves very fast. That
changed in the nineteenth century when we developed good theories of
light. It is the probe that moves very fast and, for the first time,
begins to reveal to us that space and time are not quite what we
thought."

John Norton teaches this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

But John Norton teaches this as well:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "An emission theory fails. So Einstein would have found
himself in an impossible position. The speed of light cannot vary with
the speed of the emitter; presumably it must be a constant, as
Maxwell's theory had urged all along. Yet in addition, Einstein was
convinced that the principle of relativity must obtain in
electrodynamic theory. How can both obtain? They require the speed of
light to be the same for all inertial observers? The footnote already
quoted above points us to Einstein's next step. "The difficulty to be
overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum,
which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of
[jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the
arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." The key to the puzzle is
the relativity of simultaneity. If Einstein gives up the absoluteness
of simultaneity, then the principle of relativity and the constancy of
the speed of light are compatible after all. The price paid for the
compatibility is that we must allow that space and time behaves rather
differently than Newton told us."

George Orwell explains John Norton's behaviour:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Artistic liars in Einsteiniana:

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/02/23/news/local_state/doc4b843f64ae2a8298144444.txt
"According to Dr. Ron Mallett, professor of physics at University of
Connecticut, the question isn't whether time travel is possible, but,
instead, when it will happen. (...) Mr. Mallett is no stereotypical
mad scientist who mumbles Einstein's Theory of Relativity and physics
jargon to a roomful of science geeks. More showman than scientist, Mr.
Mallett entertained the crowded room of students, faculty, and staff
with humor, stories, charts, and cartoons - making the complicated
world of physics understandable to the average Joe. With necks craned
and eyes glued to the front of the room, the saying held true: "You
could hear a pin drop" during Mr. Mallet's presentation. (...) After
reading H.G. Wells' novel The Time Machine, Mr. Mallett became focused
on one goal: to build a time machine so he could go back in time to
see his father again and warn him about his impending heart attack.
(...) Based on Einstein's work, Mr. Mallett has developed a time
travel theory using light. In layman's terms - if light can create
gravity, and gravity can affect time, then light can affect time. He
hopes to prove this theory in the lab by using laser lights and
reflective mirrors. In a recent research development, Mr. Mallett is
now getting help - man power as well as funding - from his alma mater.
The Penn State Electro Optic Center located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania is collaborating with Mr. Mallett to test the first part
of his theory - the gravitational affect of light."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

John Norton teaches this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

But John Norton teaches this as well:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "An emission theory fails. So Einstein would have found
himself in an impossible position. The speed of light cannot vary with
the speed of the emitter; presumably it must be a constant, as
Maxwell's theory had urged all along. Yet in addition, Einstein was
convinced that the principle of relativity must obtain in
electrodynamic theory. How can both obtain? They require the speed of
light to be the same for all inertial observers? The footnote already
quoted above points us to Einstein's next step. "The difficulty to be
overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum,
which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of
[jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the
arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." The key to the puzzle is
the relativity of simultaneity. If Einstein gives up the absoluteness
of simultaneity, then the principle of relativity and the constancy of
the speed of light are compatible after all. The price paid for the
compatibility is that we must allow that space and time behaves rather
differently than Newton told us."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html
John Norton: "This special role for the speed of light sometimes
arouses special wonder. What is so special about light, we may be
drawn to ask, that everything else takes such special note of it? Once
one starts along this path, all sorts of confusions may arise. Is it
that light is used for communication and finding things out? Does
everything somehow respond to how we find things out? Does special
relativity still work in the dark? Well--you can forget all this
mystical mumbo-jumbo, if ever it attracted you. There is nothing
special about light. It's space and time that is special. They have
properties we don't expect. Space and time are such that rapidly
moving objects shrink and their processes slow down. For a long time,
we didn't notice these effects because we did not have a thorough
account of a probe of space and time that moves very fast. That
changed in the nineteenth century when we developed good theories of
light. It is the probe that moves very fast and, for the first time,
begins to reveal to us that space and time are not quite what we
thought."

George Orwell explains John Norton's behaviour:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

In destroying human rationality (and extracting career and money
therefrom) Einsteiniana knows no limits:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "Note what was not said in this account. It did not say
that we take the first disk and set it into rotation. The reason is
that it is impossible in relativity theory to take a disk made out of
stiff material and set it into rotation. If one were to try to do
this, the disk would contract in the circumferential direction but not
in the radial direction. As a result, a disk made of stiff material
would break apart. If we want a rotating disk made of stiff material,
we need to create it already rotating. Once in a letter on the
subject, Einstein remarked that a way to get a disk of stiff material
into rotation is first to melt it, set the molten material into
rotation and then allow it harden. The rotating disk problem has
created a rather large and fruitless literature that suggests some
sort of paradox is at hand. Most of it derives from a failure to
recognize that a stiff disk cannot be set into uniform rotation
without destroying it."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

John Norton teaches this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."

But John Norton teaches this as well:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html
John Norton: "An emission theory fails. So Einstein would have found
himself in an impossible position. The speed of light cannot vary with
the speed of the emitter; presumably it must be a constant, as
Maxwell's theory had urged all along. Yet in addition, Einstein was
convinced that the principle of relativity must obtain in
electrodynamic theory. How can both obtain? They require the speed of
light to be the same for all inertial observers? The footnote already
quoted above points us to Einstein's next step. "The difficulty to be
overcome lay in the constancy of the velocity of light in a vacuum,
which I first believed had to be given up. Only after years of
[jahrelang] groping did I notice that the difficulty lay in the
arbitrariness of basic kinematical concepts." The key to the puzzle is
the relativity of simultaneity. If Einstein gives up the absoluteness
of simultaneity, then the principle of relativity and the constancy of
the speed of light are compatible after all. The price paid for the
compatibility is that we must allow that space and time behaves rather
differently than Newton told us."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html
John Norton: "This special role for the speed of light sometimes
arouses special wonder. What is so special about light, we may be
drawn to ask, that everything else takes such special note of it? Once
one starts along this path, all sorts of confusions may arise. Is it
that light is used for communication and finding things out? Does
everything somehow respond to how we find things out? Does special
relativity still work in the dark? Well--you can forget all this
mystical mumbo-jumbo, if ever it attracted you. There is nothing
special about light. It's space and time that is special. They have
properties we don't expect. Space and time are such that rapidly
moving objects shrink and their processes slow down. For a long time,
we didn't notice these effects because we did not have a thorough
account of a probe of space and time that moves very fast. That
changed in the nineteenth century when we developed good theories of
light. It is the probe that moves very fast and, for the first time,
begins to reveal to us that space and time are not quite what we
thought."

George Orwell explains John Norton's behaviour:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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
***@yahoo.com

[Uncle Al]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip 113 lines of crap]

1) GPS only works with relativistic corrections.
2) idiot