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

      Akinbo,

      While Pentcho struggles to explain the theory of optics without a speed of light constant, let me revive a post of mine from 2013, in this thread:

      I find interesting:

      "One proposal being studied describes black holes and their environments as a network of Hilbert spaces (a Hilbert space for any quantum mechanical system defines all possible states that the system can be in). In the conventional picture of a black hole, locality prevents the Hilbert space of the interior of the black hole from influencing the Hilbert space of the exterior of the black hole."

      For good reason. The quantum configuration space according to Bell's result cannot be mapped onto physical space without a nonlocal model. Therefore, quantum configuration space in the Hilbert space behind the event horizon is assumed simply connected and local, while the Hilbert space outside the event horizon has to be assumed multiply connected and nonlocal. If it seems paradoxical that simply connected space adjoining multiply connected space is not itself multiply connected -- that's because it *is* a paradox. Either the interior quantum configuration space maps nonlocally to the exterior space -- or the exterior space outside the event horizon is simply connected, not multiply conected, and all the space inside and outside the black hole horizon is simply connected.

      Giddings chooses nonlocality to resolve the paradox. Does he have to? If one accepts the Hilbert space model of quantum configuration space, there is no way out; the choice is singular and correct.

      In the continuous functions of quantum field theory, though, locality is everywhere. The Hilbert space doesn't work to preserve locality except as Giddings has described it: constrained by the boundary of a black hole event horizon. Giddings thinks he has found a way out. The article continues:

      "In Giddings' model, however, the Hilbert spaces can exchange information. This allows a black hole to slowly evaporate, but not before it has dumped the information contained within into the environment."

      Problem is, this does not resolve the paradox -- "the environment," the space outside the event horizon, is nonlocal. So the mathematical model is accurate; the quantum configuration space of the black hole interior maps onto physical space with a nonlocal model, consistent with Bell's result. There's a catch:

      A physical observer sufficiently far from the event horizon has no concept of "fast" or "slow" information leakage. All she sees is on the 2-dimension surface of the event horizon, and those events are suspended in time, not dynamic, with no exchange of information between events inside and outside the horizon.

      The article continues:

      "The idea is that local quantum field theory can be derived as an approximation of this more fundamental underlying structure, in the same way that non-relativistic Newtonian physics can be derived from relativistic Einsteinian physics."

      Except that quantum field theory is everywhere local, not bounded by anything except the speed of light, and nothing physical. It's also inaccurate that non-relativistic Newtonian physics derives from Einstein relativity -- Einstein's relativity is an extension of Newton's physics as Newton is an extension of Galilean relativity. There's no discontinuity, no gap where relativity doesn't apply.

      Giddings seems aware of the conundrum, and is willing to eject spacetime from the physics canon: "Spacetime is doomed." If it is, Giddings' model doesn't do the job. The paradox created by the discontinuous dumping of information from the assumed local, simply connected quantum-configured black hole into the classical simply connected space outside the horizon, tells us at least three things:

      1. There is no boundary between the quantum configuration space of the black hole, and "the environment." (All the space is simply connected.)

      2. If the quantum configuration space cannot map onto the physical space without a nonlocal model, as Bell's result avers, the quantum configuration space behind the black hole event horizon is not local and not simply connected.

      3. Nonlocality -- not spacetime -- is doomed.

      Spacetime and quantum field theory nicely coexist with a continuum of Euclidean space, generalized to n-dimension topology. We simply don't need assumptions of Hilbert spaces and nonlocality.

      Petr Horava's creative curiosity:

      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

      "As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move."??

      Isn't such backdrop merely Newton's old scenario of God? My experience tells me that Leibniz was perhaps correct when he argued that it did restrict God too much.

      In Shannon's, Popper's and my own words, the past is unchangeable while the future is open; nothing may move backward in time. Incidentally, Newton's big clock did not at all measure time but elapsed time.

      This doesn't imply that space-time will not "be the loser". This idea of Poincaré in 1904 was perhaps silly enough as to worry and psycho-somatically kill Hermann Minkowski in 1908 because he wasn't aware that his lazy dog might be wrong.

      ++++

      Tom,

      I have read your post. Most of the concepts are preferred by the mathematically inclined like yourself. Concepts like nonlocality, spacetime, etc. The only statement that made most sense to me was where you said there can be no exchange of information between events inside and outside the horizon. This I agree with because based on the classical model, nothing can escape from a black hole. To me the Hawking process (whereby two particles are formed and one falls into the hole, while the other escapes) leading to black hole evaporation is flawed.

      Concerning your answers to the questions I asked -

      A: Which of two clocks in uniform relative motion does the special theory require to work more slowly? Do you have an answer to this?

      T: The times are relative

      A: "The times are relative", relative to what?

      T: The speed of light

      The impression this gives is that times of the two clocks are relative to the speed of light. That is, whether a clock works more slowly or faster than another is relative to the speed of light. That means, the speed of light affects the rate of clocks in different ways and is not the same to every clock. I thought the speed of light was absolute and the same to all observers according to SR?

      In any case, your answer that the times are relative to the speed of light avoids telling us which of the two clocks runs more slowly.

      Akinbo