Hello Akinbo,

and me I have not a happy new year :)

happy new year Akinbo and be the force with you

"there is no such thing as a false postulate"

I suspect only Tom and Akinbo believe in this. For the rest of the world the potential falsehood of any physical postulate is something obvious:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

Pentcho Valev

    There will be no more discourse with you, Pentcho, until you explain the theory of optics without the speed of light postulate.

    Smolin is wrong and he knows it. Two postulates are necessary because relative motion is always referred to -- i.e., relative to -- absolute motion.

    There is no such thing as a "false postulate". Every mathematician in the world knows this.

    A theory of optics without the speed of light postulate:

    http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagungen/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 François 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."

    Pentcho Valev

    Let me make this simpler for you:

    Light refracted through water makes it appear as if a straight stick is bent. Explain this effect.

    Steve Giddings rejects Einstein's absurd spacetime but so do, more or less explicitly, many other Einsteinians (even though they continue to worship the underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate):

    http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/205

    "If you'd asked Einstein, he would have told you that time is another dimension, much like the three dimensions of space. Together they knit together to create a spacetime fabric that pervades the universe. This notion of time as a dynamic, flexible dimension forms the basis of his immensely successful general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity manifests on cosmic scales as matter warps spacetime. On the other hand, however, the equally celebrated theory of quantum mechanics, which governs the nanoscale behavior of atoms and subatomic particles, says that time is unaffected by the presence of matter, serving as an absolute background reference clock against which motion can be measured."

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/08/05/science.aac6498

    "In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/11/whos-on-first-relativity-time-and-quantum-theory/

    Frank Wilczek: "Einstein's special theory of relativity calls for radical renovation of common-sense ideas about time. Different observers, moving at constant velocity relative to one another, require different notions of time, since their clocks run differently. Yet each such observer can use his "time" to describe what he sees, and every description will give valid results, using the same laws of physics. In short: According to special relativity, there are many quite different but equally valid ways of assigning times to events. Einstein himself understood the importance of breaking free from the idea that there is an objective, universal "now." Yet, paradoxically, today's standard formulation of quantum mechanics makes heavy use of that discredited "now."

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-600-why-do-we-move-forwards-in-time/

    "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order - 
A, then B, then C - someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way - C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

    "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

    http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726

    "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE

    Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:11): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html

    "...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.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html

    "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time (...) The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."

    Pentcho Valev

      Does Giddings ever get around to explaining the 'strong force' as anything other then a mysterious 'force' that counteracts the known repulsion parameters of like sign electrostatic charge? Now they find 'pentaquarks' so the quants probably need to invent another spin characteristic (I imagine they're pretty much all out of Charm) and to prevent any chance of a causality from showing its ugly face, it should be sufficiently ambiguous - how about "empathy"? like between an Up quark and a Down quark? they already had three quarks and now five so they'd need another additive plus=minus arbitrary value. Problem solved. jrc

      Addendum;

      If a Down quark has more empathy for an Up quark, like Browns fans have empathy for Jimmy Haslam where Haslam has NONE for working folk, that empathy has to be conserved in the cumulative spin that quants put on a particle. What ever they need it to be...a whole value or a half value. That's how the subatomic realm is governed by spin.

      Tom,

      at least you're doing better than me. I haven't even gotten a nibble and I've got my light-weight tackle of symmetrical spin axial of precession all rigged with a selection of Mr. Wiggly baits, fan casting the orthogonal intersection of three complex planes... and nothin' from the school of Sheephead bottom feeding on QM's prediction of pentaquarks without a rationale of what actually adding the spin characteristics of two additional quarks onto which planes will cause the precession to do. It will get wobbly again. o,o,o,o,@S^0 jrc

      Desperate Einsteinians (like Steve Giddings):

      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900

      New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (...) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

      http://www.thefreelibrary.com/It's+likely+that+times+are+changing%3A+a+century+ago,+mathematician...-a0185331159

      "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. (...) "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/happy-birthday-einstein-1_b_8219432.html

      Sten Odenwald: "It all comes down to one thing: If we don't know what spacetime really is as a physical agency, how can we possibly understand gravity or try to manipulate it artificially to, among other things, create 'warp drive'? Now THAT is a mind-numbing question. When general relativity turns 200, we may well find its answer....or not!"

      Pentcho Valev

      Valev,

      If you quote an excerpt from Giddings then give an http it should be for the article you quote from, not some other which doesn't mention Giddings. In science that is violation of rules of citation, and grounds for disbarment. Cut & Paste is childsplay not science.

      there it is...in another thread, not the fqxi or newscientist hypertext transport protocols P.V. lists in this one. Hence the rules of proper citation protocols. But calling Giddings a 'desperate Einsteinian' is not how Giddings presents himself. Rather he presents a knowledge of both disciplines with respect for both. jrc

      Steve Giddings does present himself as desperate here:

      http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857

      Steve Giddings: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

      https://edge.org/response-detail/25477

      What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

      And John Cox, please give moral lessons to somebody else, not to me.

      Pentcho Valev

        That's your desperation, Gidding's creative curiousity.

        Happy new year Steve Dufourny.

        @ Tom, you will make a good politician. "The times are relative", relative to what?

        Let me repeat the question: (As seen by an observer/ experimenter), Which of two clocks in uniform relative motion (say 100m/s) does the special theory require to work more slowly?

        @ Pentcho, before you accuse me falsely concerning, "there is no such thing as a false postulate", what is the meaning of 'postulate'? Postulate is a mere statement not requiring contradiction directly. Its contradiction or falsity can only be indirect by finding that its predictions are untrue. In that sense, constant speed of light is a postulate, it is its predictions that can be used to attack it not the statement itself which remains what it is, an assumption.

        Anyway, I don't want to get embroiled in how words are used.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        Lee Smolin's creative curiosity:

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

        "And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

        http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-Reborn-Professor-Physics-Lee-Smolin/9780547511726

        "Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

        Pentcho Valev