DOUBLETHINK AND RELATIVISM IN EINSTEINIANA

[Pentcho Valev]

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. (...) 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."

Doublethink combined with (philosophical) relativism (relativism: as
one passes from theory to theory or as the theory develops, what is
true changes and not merely what is taken to be true):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition [LIE]! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general
theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved
spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new
theory [TRUTH]. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general
theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein
talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather
than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change,
but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so.
This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense
[TRUTH], but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light
is constant [LIE: ALWAYS ONE LEAP AHEAD OF THE TRUTH] in general
relativity."

In fact, Einstein believed that the speed of light is VARIABLE all
along (or at least since 1907):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

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.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Uncle Al]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip crap]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In fact, Einstein believed that the speed of light is VARIABLE all

[snip rest of crap]

1) Lorentz invariance.
2) Annalen der Physik 17(10) 891-921 (1905)
3) idiot

[bert]

Post by Uncle Al
[snip crap]

Post by Pentcho Valev
In fact, Einstein believed that the speed of light is VARIABLE all

[snip rest of crap]
   1) Lorentz invariance.
   2) Annalen der Physik 17(10) 891-921 (1905)
   3) idiot
--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Uncle Al (of Irvine) Light has one speed It can not go faster or
slower. Electron has one set spin speed It can not go faster or
slower.My electron cloud structure,and my Spin is in theory are based
on this reality. Trebert

[Pentcho Valev]

Relativism in Einsteiniana: According to Einsteiniana's teachers,
there is a lot of truth in Einstein's special relativity but there is
a lot of truth in Newton's emission theory of light as well. The two
theories are COMPATIBLE:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This was itself a daring step, since these methods had been developed
to help understand the behavior of ordinary matter while Einstein was
applying them to the apparently quite different field of
electromagnetic radiation. The "revolutionary" conclusion to which he
came was that, in certain respects, electromagnetic radiation behaved
more like a collection of particles than like a wave. He announced
this result in a paper published in 1905, three months before his SRT
paper. The idea that a light beam consisted of a stream of particles
had been espoused by Newton and maintained its popularity into the
middle of the 19th century. It was called the "emission theory" of
light, a phrase I shall use.....Giving up the ether concept allowed
Einstein to envisage the possibility that a beam of light was "an
independent structure," as he put it a few years later, "which is
radiated by the light source, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light.".....An emission theory is perfectly compatible with the
relativity principle. Thus, the M-M experiment presented no problem;
nor is stellar abberration difficult to explain on this
basis......This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate
to explain all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew
they did not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of
its emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation.
Indeed, his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an
emission theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded
with any lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a
beam of light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still
be obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories......The resulting
theory did not force him to choose between wave and emission theories
of light, but rather led him to look forward to a synthesis of the
two."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://www.mfo.de/programme/schedule/2006/08c/OWR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
(1776-1833) and Fran¸cois Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context. EINSTEIN HIMSELF DID NOT KNOW OF THIS NEWTONIAN THEORY OF
LIGHT AND HE DID NOT RELY ON IT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Même s'il était conscient de l'intérêt de la
théorie de l'émission, Einstein n'a pas pris le chemin, totalement
oublié, de Michell, de Blair, des Principia en somme. Le contexte de
découverte de la relativité ignorera le XVIIIème siècle et ses racines
historiques plongent au coeur du XIXème siècle. Arago, Fresnel,
Fizeau, Maxwell, Mascart, Michelson, Poincaré, Lorentz en furent les
principaux acteurs et l'optique ondulatoire le cadre dans lequel ces
questions sont posées. Pourtant, au plan des structures physiques,
l'optique relativiste des corps en mouvement de cette fin du XVIIIème
est infiniment plus intéressante - et plus utile pédagogiquement - que
le long cheminement qu'a imposé l'éther."

More relativism in Einsteiniana: John Stachel and John Norton are
friends. They write books together, sell them successfully and share
the money. Yet John Stachel teaches that Newton's emission theory of
light and Einstein's special relativity are COMPATIBLE while John
Norton teaches that they are INCOMPATIBLE (believers all over the
world invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity"):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/rel_of_sim/index.html
John Norton: "But an emission theory is precluded in special
relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the
velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana:

As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more
frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In
Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a
new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the
wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you
start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue
hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine
Einstein" and go into convulsions):

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)."

Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the
frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency
measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V
is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the
ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more
frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the
ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth
because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with
speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the
observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old
Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana:

(1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the
top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground.
Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that
is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions.

(2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their
speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian
truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new
truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not
go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

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. (...) 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."

Doublethink combined with (philosophical) relativism (relativism: as
one passes from theory to theory or as the theory develops, what is
true changes and not merely what is taken to be true):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition [LIE]! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general
theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved
spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new
theory [TRUTH]. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general
theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein
talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather
than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change,
but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so.
This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense
[TRUTH], but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light
is constant [LIE: ALWAYS ONE LEAP AHEAD OF THE TRUTH] in general
relativity."

In fact, Einstein believed that the speed of light is VARIABLE all
along (or at least since 1907):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

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.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

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. (...) 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."

Painful doublethink in Einsteiniana (space and time are NOT a
malleable fabric and the passage of time is NOT an illusion but space
and time SHOULD BE a malleable fabric and the passage of time SHOULD
BE an illusion because Divine Albert said so):

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. Enfin...ils 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 l'espace, et de la matière comme il le
faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour,
physicien et auteur d'un ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein
m'était conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix
Nobel. "Loin d'avoir 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 l'observateur."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"[TRUTH] For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S
emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/
Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on
classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer
is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light
propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a
frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by
fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result
invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid
theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years.
It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
principle long pointed out by Ives, and [LIE] return to the Lorentz-
Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by
Erlichson."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana:

As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more
frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In
Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a
new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the
wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you
start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue
hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine
Einstein" and go into convulsions):

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)."

Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the
frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency
measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V
is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the
ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more
frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the
ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth
because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with
speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the
observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old
Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana:

(1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the
top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground.
Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that
is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions.

(2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their
speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian
truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new
truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not
go into convulsions.

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. (...) 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]

TRUTH:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/YBA/M31-velocity/doppler-shift-derive-2.html
"However, if the siren is moving towards the stationary observer, then
the distance between successive wavecrests is reduced by the distance
traveled by the source during one period. This resulting decreased
wavelength..."

In this case Einsteiniana's teachers establish the LIE (which is
always one leap ahead of the truth) in an implicit way: the reader
gets the impression that, even if the observer were moving towards the
stationary wave source, the wavelength would decrease again (and the
speed of the wave relative to the observer would remain CONSTANT, that
is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions).

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Pernicious relativism in Einsteiniana:

As you start moving against waves, wavecrests start hitting you more
frequently, that is, their speed relative to you increases. In
Einsteiniana this trivial (but very dangerous) truth is replaced by a
new truth: wavecrests start hitting you more frequently because the
wavelength somehow depends on your speed and decreases as soon as you
start moving against the waves (accordingly, the wavecrests continue
hitting you with CONSTANT SPEED, that is, believers sing "Divine
Einstein" and go into convulsions):

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)."

Now the top of a tower sends light towards the ground and the
frequency increases again: F'=F(1+V/c^2), where F is the frequency
measured at the top, F' is the frequency measured at the ground and V
is the gravitational potential difference between the top and the
ground. The old Newtonian truth is: wavecrests hit the ground more
frequently because their speed has increased between the top and the
ground: c'=c(1+V/c^2). Einsteinians hate the old Newtonian truth
because it implies that wavecrests hit an accelerated observer with
speed c'=c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative to the
observer. Accordingly, two additional truths have replaced the old
Newtonian truth in Einsteiniana:

(1) Wavecrests hit the ground more frequently because clocks at the
top of the tower somehow run faster than clocks at the ground.
Accordingly, wavecrests hit the ground with UNCHANGED SPEED c'=c, that
is, believers sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions.

(2) Wavecrests hit the ground with frequency F'=F(1+V/c^2) but their
speed relative to the ground is greater than in the old Newtonian
truth: the new speed is c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Believers accept this new
truth as well but sing "Divine Einstein" without enthusiasm and do not
go into convulsions.

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. (...) 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]

Einsteinians refer to doublethink as "stubbornly persistent illusion":

http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
Albert Einstein: "People like us, who believe in physics, know that
the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly
persistent illusion."

http://www.amazon.com/Stubbornly-Persistent-Illusion-Scientific-ebook/dp/B000XPPVT2
"A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion: The Essential Scientific Works of
Albert Einstein"
by Stephen Hawking (Editor)

Pentcho Valev wrote:

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. (...) 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."

Painful doublethink in Einsteiniana (space and time are NOT a
malleable fabric and the passage of time is NOT an illusion but space
and time SHOULD BE a malleable fabric and the passage of time SHOULD
BE an illusion because Divine Albert said so):

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. Enfin...ils 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 l'espace, et de la matière comme il le
faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour,
physicien et auteur d'un ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein
m'était conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix
Nobel. "Loin d'avoir 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 l'observateur."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7113956.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
"HUMANS may one day be able to use time travel to skip generations
into the future, according to Stephen Hawking. He has suggested humans
could build spaceships capable of such high speeds that time itself
would slow down for those on board. Such a spaceship could travel
thousands of years into the future at close to the speed of light,
reaching distant star systems within the lifetime of its crew. In
theory it could allow humans to "colonise the future" - perhaps even
returning to repopulate Earth if a disaster caused extinction on this
planet during the flight. "Time travel was once considered scientific
heresy and I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled
a crank, but these days I’m not so cautious," Hawking said."

Bravo, Hawking! Unlike Brian Greene who is still painfully exercising
himself in doublethink (see below), you will no longer have to "hold
two contradictory beliefs in your mind simultaneously, and accept both
of them". Rather, you will remember nothing but the lie from now on
(the truth has never existed).

Pentcho Valev wrote:

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. (...) 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."

Painful doublethink in Einsteiniana (space and time are NOT a
malleable fabric and the passage of time is NOT an illusion but space
and time SHOULD BE a malleable fabric and the passage of time SHOULD
BE an illusion because Divine Albert said so):

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. Enfin...ils 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 l'espace, et de la matière comme il le
faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour,
physicien et auteur d'un ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein
m'était conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix
Nobel. "Loin d'avoir 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 l'observateur."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[G. L. Bradford]

"Pentcho Valev" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:36899368-b726-4bc9-814a-***@e2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7113956.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084
"HUMANS may one day be able to use time travel to skip generations
into the future, according to Stephen Hawking. He has suggested humans
could build spaceships capable of such high speeds that time itself
would slow down for those on board. Such a spaceship could travel
thousands of years into the future at close to the speed of light,
reaching distant star systems within the lifetime of its crew. In
theory it could allow humans to "colonise the future" - perhaps even
returning to repopulate Earth if a disaster caused extinction on this
planet during the flight. "Time travel was once considered scientific
heresy and I used to avoid talking about it for fear of being labelled
a crank, but these days I’m not so cautious," Hawking said."

(snip)

Pentcho Valev

=====================

I figured out years ago that a great man had reached the point in senility
where he could no longer think in terms of the union or merger of space and
time into a [singular] concept of contraction / expansion. The above
statement by Hawking (if by Hawking) is a glaring example of the separation
of space and time into an inequality. The submersion of space into a concept
of time alone existing, a fantastically distorted version of [singularity]
that does away with space altogether and leaves a 1-dimensional string of
time alone (a 1-dimensional 'arrow' of time alone, if one prefers it to
'string').

Space and time are base2 (space, 0-d) (time, 1-d) operating always in a
merged unity...but no less base2.

Hawking forgets the "observable universe" is a matter of histories; a
matter of light-times, a matter of light. If Mars in its orbit is 200 light
seconds from Earth, Mars is then observably, or relatively, (-)200 seconds
from Earth....and therefore, concerning distance, also (-)200 seconds from
the real-time Mars; from real-time space (0) -- which is where Hawking,
among so many others, lost it or lose it. The travel, even at blazing -- I
mean BLAZING! -- speed, is from time (-)200 seconds to space (0).....a Mars,
relative to Earth and Earth's traveler, (-)200 seconds to a Mars in
real-time space (0). Yes the traveler has time traveled at some almost
unimaginable relative velocity, but from a time (-)200 seconds to a
real-time space (0). And now Earth is 200 light seconds from Mars....(-)200
seconds from a now CONSOLIDATED Mars in real-time space (0).....and
therefore, concerning distance, the distant Earth (-), relative to Mars (0),
is an Earth also (-)200 seconds from a real-time Earth (0); from real-time
space (0).

In other words, the starting point of travel for Hawking's generational
voyages (alluded to above) is gr-gr-gr-gr-gr... grandfather's time (-), the
"observable" universe's strings of "observable" histories (-), not the
voyager's local real-time space (0), or Earth's local real-time space (0),
or the destination's unobserved and unobservable local real-time space (0).
That is the 2-dimensional single-sided offset entities of LIGHT the voyager
will voyage (the 1-dimensional string(s) of TIME the traveler will
traveler).

SPACE? The voyager contracts and expands space, moves vertically plane to
plane of universe, moving paralleling universe to paralleling universe,
therefore keeping c a "universal constant of c" -- in total defiance of
Hawking above...space being exactly as relative, as uncertain, as time;
position being exactly as relative, exactly as uncertain regarding
'absolute', as velocity.

Hawking literally threw out, or forgot, the malleability of space. More
than even that, he tried to make space so immersed / submerged in the
1-dimensional string(s) of time as to actually become NON-EXISTENT!,
completely non-existent. He forgot something, though. Forgot it big time! He
forgot gravity's singularity (and it's infinite Singularity of singularities
(thus the duality, an infinite Universe of universes)). He forgot its
singular field(s), its well(s), its hole(s); its sheer horizontal expanse of
plane, and sheer vertical depth of planes.....its infinite Singularity (its
infinity of singularities). He threw out or forgot the contractibility /
expandability -- the sheer malleability -- of space.

GLB

========================

[Androcles]

Post by G. L. Bradford
(snip)
Pentcho Valev
=====================
I figured out years ago that a great man had reached the point in
senility where he could no longer think in terms of the union or merger of
space and time

Pity you didn't figure out years ago that you are raving fuckin' mad.

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/relativity-and-relativism/
Washington Times: "A frequently heard statement of cultural relativism
goes like this: "If it feels right for you, it's OK. Who is to say
you're wrong?" One individual's experience is as "valid" as another's.
There is no "preferred" or higher vantage point from which to judge
these things. Not just beauty, but right and wrong are in the eye of
the beholder. The "I" indeed is the "ultimate measure." The special
theory of relativity imposes on the physical world a claim that is
very similar to the one made by relativism. (...) So how come the
speed of light always stays the same? Einstein argued that when the
observer moves relative to an object, distance and time always adjust
themselves just enough to preserve light speed as a constant. Speed is
distance divided by time. So, Einstein argued, length contracts and
time dilates to just the extent needed to keep the speed of light ever
the same. (...) Space and time are the alpha and omega of the physical
world. They are the stage within which everything happens. But if they
must trim and tarry whenever the observer moves, that puts "the
observer" in the driver's seat. Reality becomes observer-dependent.
Again, then, we find that the "I" is the ultimate measure. Pondering
this in Prague in the 1950s, Beckmann could not accept it. The
observer's function is to observe, he said, not to affect what's out
there. Relativity meant that two and two didn't quite add up any more
and elevated science into a priesthood of obscurity. Common sense
could no longer be trusted."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

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. (...) 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."

Painful doublethink in Einsteiniana (space and time are NOT a
malleable fabric and the passage of time is NOT an illusion but space
and time SHOULD BE a malleable fabric and the passage of time SHOULD
BE an illusion because Divine Albert said so):

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. Enfin...ils 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 l'espace, et de la matière comme il le
faisait au XIXème siècle. C'est ce que déplore Thibault Damour,
physicien et auteur d'un ouvrage passionnant intitulé 'Si Einstein
m'était conté', dans lequel il dresse un portrait scientifique du prix
Nobel. "Loin d'avoir 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 l'observateur."

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."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[G. L. Bradford]

"Pentcho Valev" wrote

(snip)

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition [LIE]! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general
theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved
spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new
theory [TRUTH]. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general
theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited
validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position."

(snip)

Post by Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev

=====================

"A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of
propagation of light varies with position."

"Position"? What "position"?

("....constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo" ([vacuo]))

-------------

With constancy of CHANGE in the universe at large and at small --
therefore constancy of MOTION existing both ways, "position" is always
relative....never absolute. Therefore "velocity" (of the positioned) is
always relative....never absolute. Therefore UNOBSERVED space-time (0) is
never quite one with OBSERVED space-time (-). Usually far from it. Most
usually, far, far, far from it. Curvature proceeding from slight to great
and vice-versa. Even to infinite from infinitesimal, and vice-versa.

The speed (+/-) 300,000 kps (the speed of light) (c) is universal to those
very, very, localized space-times (0). Singularly photo-constant. "Very,
very, localized" equals..... (sic) "very, very, localized" (singularly 0=0).
Infinity is an unobservable constant of the Universe which everywhere
[locally] collapses to a finite, therefore observable, universal
HORIZON-CONSTANT (one horizon-constant of the [local] universe) such as the
constant of c, the constant of the speed of light. "Local" ..... "finite"
..... the infinitesimal point universe(s) existing within the context of
infinite Universe. Yet infinitesimal and infinite are singularly dual being,
singularly a duality, actually a naked singularity distinctively divided -or
ordered- into two (and infinitely more than two, as well as infinitely less
than one) only [relatively] speaking (only [locally] speaking (only
[finitely] speaking)).

"Position"? What "position"?

("....constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo" ([vacuo]))

GLB

=====================