Dr. E's MDT Theory

Thanks for the reply Dr.E,

I'm not yet convinced that it is the answer.

Einstein and Godel spent their later years consumed by the problem of understanding time and whether or not it was "real".

Why do you suppose that Einstein did not just take his own formula literally, as you have done, and so put an end to the matter?

That's a rhetorical question. I think I already know.

Good luck.

Georgina.

Hello Georgina,

Yes! Einstein and Godel realized that relativity froze us in a block universe! MDT's simple equation dx4/dt=ic liberates us from that block universe while also providing the "elementary foundations" for relativity that Einstein sought! How cool is that? And too, it provides us with a *physical* model for quantum entanglement and nonlocality. And for the first time in the history of relativity, change is wedded into the fundamental fabric of spacetime!

x4=ict has real, *physical* meaning that we must *not* ignore, no matter how many cash prizes await us in parallel universes and the giant voids!

I will try to find the exact quotes/resources for all this, but did you know that Planck never quite accepted his own theory and equation E=hv? He was reluctant to take it literally and see its deeper *physical* meaning:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/373 reports:

"As (Planck) explained in a letter written in 1931, the introduction of energy quanta in 1900 was "a purely formal assumption and I really did not give it much thought except that no matter what the cost, I must bring about a positive result". Planck did not emphasize the discrete nature of energy processes and was unconcerned with the detailed behaviour of his abstract oscillators. Far more interesting than the quantum discontinuity (whatever it meant) was the impressive accuracy of the new radiation law and the constants of nature that appeared in it. "

The article goes on to state that although Planck was the first to write down the equation, it was Einstein who saw its deeper physical significance, by taking it literally: "If Planck did not introduce the hypothesis of energy quanta in 1900, who did? Lorentz and even Boltzmann have been mentioned as candidates, but a far stronger case can be made that it was Einstein who first recognized the essence of quantum theory. Einstein's remarkable contributions to the early phase of quantum theory are well known and beyond dispute. Most famous is his 1905 theory of light quanta (or photons), but he also made important contributions in 1907 on the quantum theory of the specific heats of solids and in 1909 on energy fluctuations.

There is no doubt that the young Einstein saw deeper than Planck, and that Einstein alone recognized that the quantum discontinuity was an essential part of Planck's theory of black-body radiation. Whether this makes Einstein "the true discoverer of the quantum discontinuity", as claimed by the French historian of physics Olivier Darrigol, is another matter. What is important is that Planck's role in the discovery of quantum theory was complex and somewhat ambiguous. To credit him alone with the discovery, as is done in some physics textbooks, is much too simplistic. Other physicists, and Einstein in particular, were crucially involved in the creation of quantum theory. The "discovery" should be seen as an extended process and not as a moment of insight communicated on a particular day in late 1900." --http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/373

And so it is that by taking x4=ict literally, and seeing it as an equation with physical significance, brand new doors have been opened as dx4/dt=ic unfreezes time and liberates us from the block universe. And too, a *physical* model and mechanism are provided for quantum mechanics' nonlocality, time and all its arrows and asymmetries and entropy, and entanglement--qm's characteristic trait! As all of relativity is naturally derived from MDT's fundamental universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic, finally we see the "elementary foundations" for relativity which Eisntein sought!

Suddenly time flows and we see the very source of nonlocality and thus quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature!

Again and again, I turn towards my simple, irrefutable proofs of MDT:

Simple proofs of MDT:

PROOF#1:

Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.

Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner.

The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change.

For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

PROOF#2:

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4=ict

Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

PROOF#3:

The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Is this not what physics is and ought to be about?

More in the next post!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

P.S. In the attached paper (which I attch to keep this post short/pre-collapsed/etc.), please see how the latest cover story in Scientfic American is resolved via MDT!!!

Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity. Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions about the world. It may also undermine Einstein's special theory of relativity. By David Z Albert and Rivka Galchen

--http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity

Both entanglement and relativity walk hand-in-hand in MDT, just as they do in our physical reality. See the attached paper.

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY SOLVES DILEMMA IN FEB. 2009's SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COVER STORY. MDT: UNITING EINSTEIN'S ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONS OF RELATIVITY & SCHRODENGER'S CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF QUANTUM MECHANICSAttachment #1: 2_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdfAttachment #2: 5_ja_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

As I knew that MDT would first be violently rejected in our postmodern, antiphysics agae, and then ultimately claimed to be self-evident and obvious by the conscienceless, mere mathematicians, I made sure to keep a track record of its development, posting in immutable usenet groups. While anonymous antitheorists can play around with, delete, and edit my posts (preseting physical potsualtes and equations dx4/dt=ic) here so as to protect the greater good of the groupthink funding for giant voids, parallel universe, and multiverses, they cannot touch them out on the usenet; at least not without far, far more effort.

Below is a post (now edited as I now see that the fourth dimension is not time, but time, as measured on our ticking watches, is an emergent phenomena because dx4/dt=ic) from 08-29-2006, 06:32 AM:

http://www.molecularstation.com/forum/physics-forum/38603-simply-put-moving-dimensions-theory-new-model-http-physicsmathforums-com.html

Moving Dimensions Theory & On The Advancement Of Physics

Physics has been furthered far more often by a rugged individual acknowledging the simple and obvious in a pursuit of the truth than book-keepers-in-training playing games in the abstruse in pursuit of tenure. The advancement of physics has ever depended far more on

logic, reason, and Truth than government grants, tenure, group think, peer-reviewed journals, and aging bureaucracies. The courage to state, "That is the way things are because that is the way things are," has lead to far more physics than the contemporary, "things can't be that way because the math dictates that we live in thirty-three dimensions and four are curled up, and that is what NSF is funding."

When nobody could measure nor detect the supposed ether, Einstein proclaimed, "there is no ether." When experiments showed that light existed only in quantized packets, Einstein proclaimed that light only existed in quantized packets, and he won the Nobel Prize. When spectra from atoms showed discreet energies, Niels Bohr proclaimed that

electrons orbits were quantized, and he received a Nobel Prize. When Maxwell's Equations had a recurring constant, Maxwell used c to denote it, and Einstein proclaimed that the speed of light must be constant for all observers--and so Special Relativity was born. (MDT now provides the elementary foundations from where Einstein's postulates come form). When Einstein juxtaposed objects falling towards the earth getting closer together with the fact that two people starting at the equator, walking on

originally parallel lines of longitude towards the North Pole, would come together because they were walking on a curved surface, Einstein proclaimed that the space-time around a massive object must also be curved. This simple, *physical* analogy, along with Einstein's realization that the force of gravity would be rendered null in free-fall, lead to General Relativity.

And so it is that in the above paragraph you have the roots of the greatest achievements of physics in the past 100+ years, dwarfing String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, and thousands of their Landscape/Multiversevariatons, which deal in the abstruse, complicated, muddled, and mythological worlds which are safe from physics simple rigor.

Moving Dimensions Theory (dx4/dt=ic)returns us to simpler times. It starts with the simple and keeps it simple. Light travels with a maximum velocity of c, because the fourth dimension is expanding at a rate relative to

the three spatial dimensions at the velocity of c. A photon expands through space in a spherically symmetric manner. This is because the fourth dimension expands through the three spatial dimensions in a spherically symmetric manner. Energy and mass are equivalent, expressed

by E=mc^2, because energy is nothing more than mass rotated into the expanding fourth dimension. The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect (EPR) effect, which calls instantaneous action at a distance "spooky," can be

accounted for by the expanding dimension-as a point expands, it is yet a single locale in that dimension, and hence though separated by distance in space, interacting particles may be in the same place in the time dimension, and hence connected. The null vector of the photon,

which remains 0 no matter how far the photon travels in space-time, may be accounted for by the fact that the fourth dimension is moving, and thus the only way to stay still in the four dimensions is to move with

along with the expanding dimension. In Lorentzian Transformations, there is no way for an object to be rotated into the time dimension without it moving-this can be explained by the fact that the time dimension is expanding. All wave-particle duality can be seen as the

result of the universe's existence upon a reality that has three stationary spatial dimensions and one expanding time dimension-when matter exists in the stationary dimensions, it is seen as mass, or a particle. When matter exists in the time dimension it is seen as wave, or a photon, or energy. Depending how we choose to observer matter

determines whether we observe its wave or particle properties. Photons are quantized bundles of energy that propagate at the velocity of c-this is because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions in a quantized manner, in units of Planck's

length at the rate of c. The Second Law of Thermodyamics, or the law of Entropy, states that the universe tends towards disorder. This is because the fourth dimension is expanding in a spherically symmetric manner, constantly carrying all photons and interacting particles away

from one another-thus a drop of food coloring in a pool will be carried outward and evenly distributed. In 1949 Godel published a paper showing that within the theory of relativity, time as we understand it, does not exist. Einstein recognized Godel's paper as "an important

contribution to the general theory of relativity," and since then physicists have not been able to find any logical shortcomings in Godel's work, and nobody has been able to account for the existence of time. But the Theory of Moving Dimensions accounts for time as we know

it by showing that it is an emergent property of the underlying dimension's intrinsic relative movement. Relativity becomes increasingly exact at long-length scales but fails at short ones because space-time itself is quantized, as the fourth dimension is expanding in units of the Planck length, giving rise to nonlocality and time and all its arrows and asymmetries.

The concept of general relativity's smooth geometry, at large scales, disappears on short-distance scales-this has been a problem to string theorists, but only because they were never bold enough to recognize that's the way it is because that's the way it is. Realizing this might have lead one of them to see that the fourth dimension is expanding at a rate of c relative to the three spatial dimensions. So it is seen that Moving Dimensions Theory offers a simple model upon which all known phenomena of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics may rest. And because the underlying architecture of the universe is quantized-because the fourth dimension expands at the rate of c in units of the Planck length relative to the three spatial dimensions, quantum mechanics works for the small, while general relativity works for the large. That is the way it is because that is the way it is-this was the realization that lead to the postulate of MDT: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Are New Ideas Important in Physics?

String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses.

-Richard Feynman

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out. -Max Planck

....I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! ...I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. ... I don't like it that they're not calculating anything. ...why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers ... have no explanations in these string theories - absolutely none! ... -Richard Feynman in Davies and Brown, Superstrings, Cambridge 1988, pp. 194-195.

String theory is the Enron of physics, and like Enron, it is but the tip of the iceberg of the widespread group-think decline. Where Enron and Worldcom and Global Crossing lied to plunder pensions and investors, String Theory lies to plunder tax, tenure, titles, and tuition dollars. With millions of NSF dollars at stake, and billions more in the way of tax and tuition, fashion and group-think are now held superior to logic and reason in physics. And as in all totalitarian systems which hold

themselves above logic, reason, truth, justice, and practicality, the worst are promoted, while the best are exiled. The group-think sycophants get the postdocs, while the indie physicists must forage on their own, as the sycophantic fanboys are sent forth to castigate and impugn the rugged, independent physicist.

Are new ideas important in physics as prominent physicists so often proclaim? If so, then why are young scientists with new ideas based in logic, reason, and reality, so often castigated, impugned, and crucified while those who quietly, passively, and uncreatively accept the nonsensical, none-physics, crackpot mythologies of String Theory and M-Theory rewarded with vast salaries, health benefits, TV shows, book deals, magazine covers, and tenure?

I would very much like to discuss my new theory here, but I am forbidden from even mentioning its name, as the String Theorists and other fashionistas do not approve of theories with postulates based in logic and reason. And so their multi-billion dollar myth is perpetuated at the expense of logic, reason, and physics.

But time is on our side. And what is time? I am not allowed to say, as my theory is banned for the moment.

The current state of physics has several Prominent Physicists and Great Thinkers spinning in their graves:

The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them. -Albert Einstein

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen. -Albert Einstein

The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science. -Albert Einstein

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. -Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein's three rules of work:

1. Out of clutter, find simplicity. dx4/dt=ic!!

2. From discord, find harmony. dx4/dt=ic!!

3. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity. dx4/dt=ic!!

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

-Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious-it is the source of all true art and science. -Albert Einstein

Science and art belong to the whole world, and before them vanish the barriers of nationality. -Goethe

It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science. -Carl Sagan

Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development. -Julius Sextus Frontinus, Highly regarded engineer in Rome, 1st century A.D.

And if everybody says that you are wrong, then you are one step ahead. But there is one situation which is better still, when everyone begins to laugh about you, then you know you are two steps ahead. Albert

Szent-Gyorgi (Nobel-prize winning biochemist who discovered vitamin C)

One cannot step twice into the same river. -Heraclitus

While the rational mind is important, we gain a new perspective when we learn how many of the greatest scientific insights, discoveries, and revolutionary inventions appeared first to their creators as fantasies,

dreams, trances, lightening-flash insights, and other non-ordinary states of consciousness. -Willis Harman and Howard Rheingold

"Let us learn to dream, gentlemen." -Kekule, famous for his

dream-inspired scientific breakthrough-discovering the molecular structure of benzene, advised his fellow scientists:

Whenever you look at a piece of work and you think the fellow was crazy, then you want to pay some attention to that. One of you is likely to be, and you had better find out which one it is. It makes an awful lot of difference. -Charles Franklin Kettering (1876-1958)

U.S. engineer and inventor.

An essential aspect of creativity is not being afraid to fail. -Dr. Edwin Land

All sciences are now under the obligation to prepare the ground for then future task of the philosopher, which is to solve the problem of value, to determine the true hierarchy of values. -Friedrich Nietzsche

I wish to be at any time hereafter only a yea-sayer!

-Friedrich Nietzsche

We must be physicists in order to be creative since so far codes of values and ideals have been constructed in ignorance of physics or even in contradiction to physics. -Friedrich Nietzsche

A thinker sees his own actions as experiments and questions.. as attempts to find out something. Success and failure are for him answers above all. -Friedrich Nietzsche

There are no facts, only interpretations. -Friedrich Nietzsche

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

-Isaac Newton

Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, felt that the pioneer scientist must have a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by "artistically creative imagination."

In "Shorter Bartlett's Familiar Quotations," by John Bartlett, 1937, 1980, 1992.

It is by intuition that we discover and by logic we prove. -Henri Poincaré, Mathematician

Knowledge has three degrees-opinion, science, and illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition. This last is absolute knowledge founded on the identity of the mind knowing with the object known. -Plotinus

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. -Albert Einstein

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. -Isaac Newton

Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, felt that the pioneer scientist must have "a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by artistically creative imagination."

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: What does happen is that the opponents gradually die out. -Max Planck

It was bad enough, they say, when string theorists treated nonbelievers as though they were a little slow-witted. Now, it seems, at least some superstring advocates are ready to abandon the essential definition of science itself on the basis that string theory is too important to be hampered by old-fashioned notions of experimental proof. - Michael Lemonick, Time Magazine, The Unraveling of String Theory, August 2006

In the mood for some no-holds-barred gossip or a nasty screed? Then start browsing the physics blogosphere, where some exceedingly smart people are spending an inordinate amount of time belittling one another. Alas, even this magazine has come under attack. The cause of all the commotion? Some nervy upstarts are questioning the validity of string theory, which is to physics what Wal-Mart is to retail: the biggest thing around, dominant for more than 20 years now. And woe unto anyone who doubts the orthodoxy.... Tim Folger, Tangled Up In Strings-Discover Magazine

The Scientific American review (of Peter Woit's Not Even Wrong) is by George Johnson and entitled The Inelegant Universe. Johnson notes one of his pieces for the New York Times six years ago carries what he now sees as an embarassing headline: "Physicists Finally Find a Way to

Test Superstring Theory" (in his defense, this kind of headline is still appearing in over-hyped articles about string theory to this day). I've been a bit surprised at how friendly a reception Smolin's book and mine have been getting so far from science writers. I think one reason for this is that many of them have repeatedly over the last twenty years written articles about string theory that repeat a lot of the hype promising imminent success in producing predictions. They've now been burned too many times and are very open to listening to the critics. -Peter Woit's Rockin' Blog Not Even Wrong,

In his autobiography Einstein said (I quotes this in the MDT paper which FQXI roundly snubbed/ignored,as they exiled that classical psirit of science and replaced it with science recreated in tehir own snarky, tyrannical, groupthink antitheorist image, as they prefer multiverses and giant voids over classical, epic physics):

Before I enter upon a critique of mechanics as a foundation of physics, something of a broadly general nature will first have to be said concerning the points of view according to which it is possible to

criticize physical theories at all. The first point of view is obvious: The theory must not contradict empirical facts. However evident this demand may in the first place appear, its application turns out to be quite delicate. For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaption of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions. In any case, however, this first point of view is concerned with the confirmation of the theoretical foundation by the available empirical

facts.

The second point of view is not concerned with the relation to the material of observation but with the premises of the theory itself, with what may briefly but vaguely be characterized as the "naturalness" or " logical simplicity" of the premises (of the basic concepts and of the relations between these which are taken as a basis). This point of view, an exact formulation of which meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories since time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all unequivocally possible), but that of a kind of reciprocal weighing of incommeasurable qualities. Furthermore, among theories of equally "simple" foundation that one is to be taken as superior which most sharply delimits the qualities of system in the abstract (i.e., contains that most definite claims). Of the "realm" of theories I need not speak here, inasmuch as we are confining ourselves to such theories whose object is the totality of all physical appearances. The second point of view may briefly be characterized as concerning itself with the "inner perfection" of the theory, whereas the first point of view refers to the "external confirmation." The following I reckon as also belonging to the "inner perfection" of a theory: we prize a theory more highly if, from the logical standpoint, it is not the result of an arbitrary choice among theories which, among themselves, are of equal value and analogously constructed." --Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume One, 1949, Autobiographical Notes, p 21--23, Open Court, Cambridge University Press.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

P.S. In the attached paper (which I attach yet again so as to demontrate how FQXI members constitently refuse to disucss Scientific American and the MDT theory which unifies Einstein/Entanglement), please see how the latest cover story in Scientfic American is resolved via MDT!!!

Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity. Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions about the world. It may also undermine Einstein's special theory of relativity. By David Z Albert and Rivka Galchen

--http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity

Both entanglement and relativity walk hand-in-hand in MDT, just as they do in our physical reality. See the attached paper. Finally qm and relativity are unified in our theories and physical philosophies with MDT's simple model.

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY SOLVES DILEMMA IN FEB. 2009's SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COVER STORY. MDT: UNITING EINSTEIN'S ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONS OF RELATIVITY & SCHRODENGER'S CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF QUANTUM MECHANICSAttachment #1: 3_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdfAttachment #2: 1_j_a_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

To Elliot: You never answered my question to you on relativity which was:

You have said several times that MDT agrees 100% with all of relativity. Does this mean that MDT hinges on relativity being 100% correct? If the answer to that is yes - then sorry, but If you remember my essay you know I will have to reject MDT on that basis. I will post this on your blog as well so you can answer there and not here. That way we can adhere to the FQXI rules of not discussing your theory here. Thanks. Oh, and I completely agree with your take about time travel, strings and all of the other "beam me up, Scotty" stuff that physicists are putting in their books to sell to the wanabees. They have become heroes to the stupid and laughing stocks to those who know better. What an empty reward!

Hello Chris,

Yes--MDT fully supports Einstein's relativity as all of relativity may be derived from its simple principle: dx4/dt=ic.

Give me a universe wherein we have four dimensions x1, x2, x3, x4 and the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions, or dx4/dt=ic, and all of relativity arises.

Relativity has so far passed experimental test, after test, after test; and all theories must conform to experimental reality, unless one is raising FQXI funds for "giant voids" and proof of "imprints of other universes" just beyond our own.

MDT offers a simple, beautiful postulate, equation, and principle--indeed, Einstein's principle of relativity descends from MDT's postulate. And MDT is more succinct than relativity, for from MDT's single postulate and equation comes both of relativity's postulates.

Also from MDT's simple postulate and equation comes a natural *physical* model for time and all its arrows and assymetries, as well as entropy, quantum nonlocality and entanglement, all the dualities--space/time, mass/energy, wave/particle--and both Heisenbergs' and Huygens' principles.

dx4/dt=ic (MDT's equation underlying relativity) suggests that the fourth dimension is expandingh at c.

xp-px = ih (underlying quantum mechanics) suggests that the wavelength of this expansion is Planck's length.

So it is that MDT sets both Planck's constant and the velocity of light, while also maintaining the constancy of the velocity of light by giving rise to all of relativity.

In the attached paper (which I attach yet again so as to demontrate how FQXI members constitently refuse to disucss Scientific American and the MDT theory which unifies Einstein/Entanglement), please see how the latest cover story in Scientfic American is resolved via MDT!!!

Was Einstein Wrong?: A Quantum Threat to Special Relativity. Entanglement, like many quantum effects, violates some of our deepest intuitions about the world. It may also undermine Einstein's special theory of relativity. By David Z Albert and Rivka Galchen

--http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=was-einstein-wrong-about-relativity

Both entanglement and relativity walk hand-in-hand in MDT, just as they do in our physical reality. See the attached paper. Finally qm and relativity are unified in our theories and physical philosophies with MDT's simple model.

MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY SOLVES THE STATED DILEMMA IN FEB. 2009's SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COVER STORY. MDT: UNITING EINSTEIN'S ELEMENTARY FOUNDATIONS OF RELATIVITY & SCHRODENGER'S CHARACTERISTIC TRAIT OF QUANTUM MECHANICSAttachment #1: 4_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdfAttachment #2: 2_j_a_wheeler_recommendation_mcgucken_medium2.jpg

Elliot,

I will start by quoting you in your above post:

"Relativity has so far passed experimental test, after test, after test; and all theories must conform to experimental reality"

Actually, that is completely untrue. What has passed many tests is verification of some of Einstein's predictions contained within his theory of relativity. The one I will focus on is relative time since that was the crux of my essay in describing its relation to the "Nature of Time." Einstein predicted (correctly) that relative motion and gravity will both cause time dilation. His explanation for why time dilates however (which he describes in combination in his famous 1905 paper, his 1911 paper on the influence of gravity on light and his 1918 twin paradox article) is not self-consistent and can not be possible. So we can all continue to pat uorselves on the back by refering to experiment after experiment that verifies time dilation - but NO experiment ever has, nor could it possibly now, verify "Einstein's Theory of Relativity." And The fact that Einstein's specific description of why time dilates in those two cases is faulty has profound consequences on how we should be investigating the time question. I need to know if you are even aware of what I am talking about before I can continue. If you understand what I am saying and it turns out that this has no negative impact on your theory, then so be it. If this major flaw in Einstein's thinking brings down some of MDT but a portion of it can still be possible - then it may have some value anyway.

Hello Chris!

Yes--I share your sentiments! It always bothered me that some physicists would insist there is a frame in which a photon experiences time. No. Photons are timeless and ageless. Time depends not just on relative measurements, but upon the absolute reality of the motion of an object.

Yes--MDT provides a physical mechanism for why only the twin in the frame that is accelerated will actually age less.

Yes--it is so true that while although the twins might argue who is aging less while in motion, only one is *physically* aging less. One of them must undergo acceleration and deceleration if they are to be reunited.

A photon *physically* does not age. A photon exhibits no motion whatsoever through the fourth dimension as it is expanding right along with it.

However, in all our space-time diagrams where we have space on one axis and time on another, we depict the photon as advancing through space and time as time advances. So then people argue the photon is moving in both space and time.

However, the time axis is but defined by the ticking seconds on our watches in the lab frame, and this is not not the fourth dimension, but rather a phenomena that emerges because the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions or dx4/dt=ic. Because light or energy is but matter cuaght upon the fourth moving dimension, and because our clocks and measurement are based on the propagation of energy, time inherits properties of the fourth dimension in relativity's math, but time is not the fourth dimension.

MDT agrees entirely with the math of Einstein's relativity, but it interprets it in a more fundamental manner.

There is an absolute rest, although it is impossible to measure absolutely, due to the tautological relationship between light and measurement, measurement and time, and light and time.

However, if one sends six different clocks off in six different directions (representing the + and - directions of the 3 spatial dimensions) from a central point at the same velocity, and all those clock readings are recorded at their furthest points and are again recorded upon their return, one will be able to apprehend one's absolute motion relative to the three fixed spatial dimensions. Only if all those clocks register the exact same time at both their furthest points, and then again agreee with one-anotehr upon their ultimate return, will one be able to conclude that one is in a stationary frame at absolute rest.

Yes! Einstein's math is right! Though some physicist's interpretations are wrong, as the block universe does not exist, and there is no frame where a photon ages.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9ZuP9JQzc00C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=clocks+flying+

opposite+directions+jets+tests+special+relativity&source=

bl&ots=Y0jok2QjaZ&sig=FTNpR24z_oS1eycjTFndxQcwEsE&hl=en&ei=

EePDSZ_NCIKOsQPgn6HgBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

http://www.amazon.com/Was-Einstein-Right-2nd-Relativity/dp/0465090869

Yes--relativity is right! Although some physicists are wrong in arguing it "is all relative." For there is no frame in which a photon ages. A photon remains timeless and ageless in all frames. And thus *physical* aging depends not just on relative measurement alone, but on the *physical* reality of an object's history of motion and acceleration, as the experiments with atomic clocks demonstrated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

http://web.archive.org/web/20050411015134/http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/metromnia/issue18/

Curious to hear more about your ideas/sentiments!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Elliot,

At this point, I don't disagree with you about a photon itslef being ageless. It is possible that I could use photons to measure my time while the photons themselves do not engage in any fundamental behaviors that mark any "time" of their own during their lifetimes. To be honest - I'm not sure. I guess I would have to look closely at what Feynman's probability amplitudes mean for a photon on a physical level before I could commit one way or the other. That's not where Einstein went wrong anyway.

Thank you for the links. I, like you am familiar with Hafele Keating experiment. Unless you have it already - I will have to dig out my Carrol O. Alley paper: Proper Time Experiments - which is one of the more comprehensive accounts of H-K experiment and gravity & velocity's effects on time. I also have numerous articles on muon half lives, falling rockets and of course, modern day GPS technology. They all have one thing in common. They verify Einstein's predictions - but they, in no way, verify Einstein's reasoning for why time is relative in those two cases. If you understand the contradiction in Einstein's relativity - you would see why there is no way that they could.

It's interesting that if you take a sample of scientist's explamnations for why time is relative and why a moving clock that experienced acceleration is running behind one that didn't, you won't even get a standard answer. Some will tell you that the clock descrepancies are explained entirely within the confines of Special Relativity (Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime Physics and Ronald Lasky, Scientific American 2003).

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=how-does-relativity-theor

just to name a couple.

Meanwhile folks like Max Born, David Mermin and oh yeah - Albert Einstein himself say that the paradox exists due to a misapplication of SR and CANNOT be solved without using GR.

Kinda funny that a theory that is supposedly so iron clad (that its critics are labeled cranks and crackpots) doesn't even have a consensus on what it even is - don't you think? That alone should give one pause. But it usually doesn't and the beat goes on......

So when you say: Yes - relativity is right! - I say: Which one?

Yes Chris--your paper/sentiments should have won a prize! For you are showing how relativity is yet interpreted differently by great minds and its very founder!

You would enjoy the book "Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius" by Hans C. Ohanian! There is a great story in it on how a glaring discrepancy ion Eisntein's work--which everyone took for granted--literally helped drive a sailing captain insane and contributed to his tragic demise at sea.

You write, "They verify Einstein's predictions - but they, in no way, verify Einstein's reasoning for why time is relative in those two cases. If you understand the contradiction in Einstein's relativity - you would see why there is no way that they could."

Could you please elaborate on this/quote the contraidctions in Eisntein's relativity? Thanks!

You are asking true, foundational questions which FQXI was supposedly set up to support; but when you read the winers' papers/"giant void" research, one sees no curiosity! None of the glaring paradoxes and discrepencies bother them! The mystery is dead, and the mysterious beauty is gone! None of the papers discuss the EPR paradox nor the paradox of Godel's timeless/block uninverse, except for mine, which shows they both become non-paradoxical because dx4/dt=ic. :) I guess that is because all the winners were already FQXI members which means that they already have it all figured out & the pre-ordained cash prizes, whether they support time or deny it--whether they support the decades-old failed quantization of gravity via tiny, little strings or tiny, little loops for which there is no evidence but for an infinite array of meaningless, ugly, snarky, handwaving, non-finite maths.

Yes--the math of relativity is right, but the crux of the problem is that too many physicists think that there is no physical difference between inertial frames. There is, even though we cannot always measure it! And thus only the twin who was accelerated, decellerated, turned around, and accelerated on back will have aged less! So it is that although two inertial frames may indeed disagree about who's clock is running slower, only one of the clocks is *physically* running slower! MDT accounts for this as proposing a stationary three spatial dimensions upon which is superimposed a fourth dimension which is expanding at the rate of c (also accounting for entropy, time's arrows, nonlocality, entanglement). Hence there is an absolute rest, although it is impossible to measure in one's own inertial frame, due to the inextricable link between time and light, the propagation of light and changes in energy, and changes in energy and time.

dx4/dt=ic postulates that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Now an interesting aspect of this is that no matter how fast one's inertial frame is moving relative to the fixed 3D background, one will always measure c to be c, as light is but matter trapped upon the fourth expanding dimensions, and clocks, which depend on the propagation of light/energy, slow down in direct proportion to the degree with which they catch up to the fourth expanding dimension. Please see the attached document for a better treatment of light clocks and MDT's simple explanation of time dilation and the gravitational redshift.

Thanks for the dialogue Chris! I'll look forward to your answers!

Over the past seven months, not one, single "best and brightest" FQXI "master of the multiverse millionaire" has refuted any of the most natural, simple and logical proofs of MDT, nor even stopped by to say "hello!":

Simple proofs of MDT:

PROOF#1:

Relativity tells us that a timeless, ageless photon remains in one place in the fourth dimension.

Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.

Ergo, the fourth dimension must be expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at the rate of c, in a spherically-symmetric manner.

The expansion of the fourth dimension is the source of nonlocality, time and all its arrows and asymmetries, c, relativity, entropy, free will, and all motion, change, and measurement, for no measurement can be made without change.

For the first time in the history of relativity, change has been wedded to the fundamental fabric of spacetime in MDT.

PROOF#2:

Einstein and Minkowski wrote x4=ict

Ergo dx4/dt=ic.

PROOF#3:

The only way to stay stationary in the three spatial dimensions is to move at c through the fourth dimension. The only way to stay stationary in the fourth dimension is to move at c through the three spatial dimensions. Ergo the fourth dimension is moving at c relative to the three spatial dimensions.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)Attachment #1: 1_2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

Elliot,

First I will elaborate on my bold relativity statements. If you research the references from the Einstein papers listed at the end of my essay - and compare what Einstein says in 1905, 1911, and 1918 - there is no way all of it can be true. Essentially what Einstein does in 1918 to address the paradox issue, is place the traveler in the lower position of a gravitational field during the turnaround portion of the trip so that the symmetry would be broken and the traveling clock would be behind the Earth clock when they reunite to compare times. It seems innocent enough on the surface - especially since it became generally accepted that gravity slows time and the closer you are to the source - the slower you will go. This seemed to fit pictorally without conflict since one could argue that the ship was experiencing for all practical purposes "gravity" during a state of acceleration. Fair enough. But if you examine the birth of the equivalence principle and follow it all the way to the proposed effects of gravity on light (and time) from the effects observed between 2 fixed points in an accelerating frame in space, you will see that Einstein erroneously applies this concept to comparing clock rates between two clocks in frames moving with respect to one another. One might wonder why he chose to resolve the paradox by limiting his description to "gravitational positions" even though it was acceleration? Could it be that he knew that the 2 frames in his resolution didn't match the conditions of his 1 frame in his 1911 paper that outlined the need for time dilation in an accelerating frame to begin with??? That's not for me to judge but if you read everything he wrote after that about relativity - he is mysteriously silent on this issue! I have to go now but more tomorrow. Anyway - this is why I'm interested to see how much of this you are aware of and how it may impact MDT.

Hello dear Eliot and dear Chris,

Eliot ,you say ....Quantum mechanics tells us that a photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric expanding wavefront at the velocity of c.

I like that because it's in relation with my Spherization Theory .

I think personnally the equation is misunderstood about relativity .

The time is not the fourth dimension in fact but three dimensiosn +time constant ,it's totally different .

If we extrapolate with maths this point of vue ,of course we stay in the mathematical imaginary like complex ,quartenions ....

But the reality of our physical laws is foundamental .

The relativity it's that ,we must consider all parameters in relativity and thus with our limits of perception .

There are many paradox but not with time I think ,it's simply a constant of building in complementarity with space ,mass and thus energy ....in correlation with spherical evolution .All centers of interest must be studied to accept a theory I think .Math ..........towards philosophy.

Kinds Regards

Steve

Hello All!

I will be on the road the next couple days, but will look forward to responding more in depth later this week!

Chris--what books might you recommend? That is cool research! Where else have you come close to seeing similar things? Would love to read more about it. Might you have links to those papers of Einstein's? Please do advise. Thanks!

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Elliot,

I have pasted in a bunch of references at the bottom. You may already have the first three Einstein papers. If you don't, I think all of them can be found in a Dover book called "The Principle of Relativity."

The fourth, which is the 1918 article, I know is not in there but you can google it and find a translated wiki copy. The last time I looked, there was a spot or two in the article's translation that confused the U2 clock with the U1 clock which would make Einstein's point confusing - so look out for that. Otherwise it is pretty accurate.

Max born provides a mathematical proof of Einstein's 1918 article in his book I have listed below.

All of the research along with the unique analysis and conclusions are my own work. A long time ago, I set out on a quest to better understand Einstein's relativity. I figured that the paradox and inconsistencies must have been due to my own misunderstanding, so I assumed Einstein and the physics community were right and I was just missing something. After countless hours of research I began to uncover how different some of the interpretatins of relativity really were! I was struck that some said that it could not be explained without the GR component and others insisted it was a common error (or at least unnecessary) to include GR in the time dilation calculations. So I performed a combined detailed analysis of Einstein's 1905, 1911 and 1918 statements about time dilation and found that he was engaging in uniform circular discussion. What he did essentially was play a shell game with acceleration and gravity. Whether he did this intentionally - or was innocently but erroneously fishing for a resolution to his own paradox is anybody's guess?

So the analysis and conclusions are my own work. As you know there have been a million Einstein critics throughout the decades but none of them have been able to successfully bust through the "Science Police" (who protect us from cranks and crackpots) because their criticisms were too vague, erroneous or incomplete. I am the only one I know of who has demonstrated these specific inconsistencies and suggested why it is important to take the time to understand their implications - especially when we hypothesize about the nature of time.

When I submitted the essay - I decided that I wouldn't jump right out of the box with: HEY GUYS I DISPROVED EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY AND I SHOW WHY IT IS IMPORTANT IN OUR EXPLORATION OF WHAT TIME REALLY IS!

Instead, I trusted the process. Since "the Management" made assurances that all essays would be read by a juried panel and would be intelligently analyzed before deciding who to award recognition to. Although to be fair - with what I accomplished with my essay, I'm sure that if Max, Anthony and the fine folks who made up the FQXI jury had a 19th place, I probably would have gotten it :) Oh, well - better luck next time right?

Unnikrishnan (listed below) has an interesting paper. He uses a neat thought experiment that I think is his own idea that is a "clock freeze." But, where he leaves himself open for criticism is when he tries to disprove Einstein through a proposed "spooky action at a distance" that doesn't appear to take into account the "Time it takes for someone else's time to slow down"

I use GPS to demopnstrate the limits of Einstein's theory which is not a thought experiment but a modern day real world application. Also Unnikrishnan does not get into any comparrison of acceleration and gravity through a detailed analysis of the difference in frames used in 1911 and 1918 which is essential to the theory's deconstruction. Having said all of that - I do like his thought experiment and think he deserves some credit for that.

You mentioned Ohanian's book on an earlier post. Yes - I read it and enjoyed it. He also read my 45 page version of my relativity/time observations that I made available in March 2008. It is on the cheely.com link listed below. Ohanian and I emailed back and forth a couple of times about his book and my 45 page monster. He seems like a good guy. I definitely think he took an unfair beating by some people who reviewed his book. Most of them missed his entire point. If you go to my page you will see a review of his book that I posted.

Hope this helps and I hope you are enjoying life on the road!

Einstein, Albert On the electrodynamics of moving bodies Annalen der Physik, 17 1905

Einstein, Albert On the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911

Einstein, Albert The foundation of the general theory of relativity Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916

Einstein, Albert Dialog about objections against the theory of relativity Die Naturwissenschaften November

29, 1918

Einstein, Albert, Infeld, Leopold The Evolution of Physics 1938 Touchstone - Simon & Schuster

Einstein, Albert Relativity 15th edition 1961 Crown

Einstein, Albert The Meaning of Relativity 5th edition, 1956 MJF Books by arrangement with Princeton

University Press

Pais, Abraham 'Subtle is the Lord...' 11th Ed. 1986 Oxford University Press

Born, Max Einstein's Theory of Relativity 1962 Dover Publications

Taylor, E. F. and Wheeler, J. A. Spacetime Physics 1992 W. H. Freeman

Lasky, Ronald C. Time and the Twin Paradox Scientific American Special Edition, Feb. 2006 Vol. 16 No. 1

www.sciam.com

Mermin, N. David It's About Time Understanding Einstein's Relativity 2005 Princeton University Press

Unnikrishnan, C. S. On Einstein's resolution of the twin clock paradox Current Science, Vol. 89, No. 12

December 25, 2005

Gron, O. G. Relativistic resolutions of the twin paradox Current Science, Vol. 92, No. 4, p. 416

February 25, 2007

Styer, Daniel F. How do two moving clocks fall out of sync? A tale of trucks, threads, and twins Am. J. Phys. 75

(9), Sept. 2007

Kennedy, Chris J. Second Thoughts March 2008 http://www.cheely.com/Science_Page.html

Hello Chris!

Thanks for the references. I have some homework. :)

Yes--the funny thing is that the very name relativity suggests that measurements of time and space are all "relative." Thus one twin states that the other's clock is the one going slower and vice versa, and both are right.

This is funny when you think about it. If you want to stay forever young just put a clock on a high-velocity spaceship and launch it at .99999999c. In its frame your watch will be running very slowly so you will stay much younger than if you had never launched the rocket.

What MDT does is shows that there is an absolute rest--the threee spatial dimensions. And there is an absolute motion--the expansion of the fourth dimension which expands at c: dx4/dt=ic. Ergo, the faster one goes the less one ages.

Consider this experiment:

You are standing here on earth.

Above you flies a rocket travelling at .999999999999999999c with a clock and you see that it is synchronized iwth yours. The rocket travels 186,000 miles to a marker in space, stationary in our frame. When it passes the marker the clock is read. The spaceship never slows down but just keeps going.

A stationary friend at the marker, whose clock is synchronized with yours, sends you the spaceship's clock's reading that it registered when it passed the marker. And you see that almost no time had elapsed on its clock (due to its high velocity and the standard equations for time dilation), while one full second had passed for you.

Ergo the clock on the moving spaceship *physically* ran slower. You could actually send him the results of the measurements, and while he will yet argue that your clock was running slower as he is receding from it, he will be able to agree with your setup and experiment--less time elapsed for him in a *physical* manner.

Now while it is true that the two could disagree as to who is length contracted and whose time is dilated while the inertial frames pass one another, time is going slower in one frame than the other.

This is because teh fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and there is thus an absolute rest and absolut motion, though it is impossible to measure due to the tautological link between space, time, and light.

Now Einstein alayws stated that he wasn't satisfied with his principle of relativity. He stated it was yet unsatisfactory and needed more fundamental foundations.

"A physical theory can be satisfactory only if its structures are composed of elementary foundations. The theory of relativity is ultimately as little satisfactory as, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted the entropy as probability. -Einstein in a letter to Arnold Sommerfield on January 14th, 1908. CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 73:"

MDT provides those fundamental foundations with dx4/dt=ic.

Give me a 4D universe (X1,X2,X3,X4) wherein the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c: dX4/dt=ic, and all of relativity naturally arises. The Minkowski spacetime metric pops right out of this simple, beuatiful postulate, naturally giving rise to Einstein's two postulates of relativity and granting us deeper insight into the twin paradox. The twin who travles faster relative to space travels slower relative to the fourth expanding dimension, and as their watch depends on changes in energy, and as energy travels relatively slower in relation to the fourth expanding dimension when it is emitted by moving objects, time also goes slower, and this tautology preserves the constancy of c. Where light slows down relative to high-speed objects, time slows down, and thus light's velocity is always c. I treat MDT and light clocks in the previosuly attached paper above:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/ 2_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdf

And of course, another vast advantage of MDT is that it provides a *physical* model for quantum mechanics' nonlocality and entangelment--qm's characteristic trait:

"When two systems, of which we know the states by their respective representatives, enter into temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after a time of mutual influence the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, viz. by endowing each of them with a representative of its own. I would not call that one but rather the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics, the one that enforces its entire departure from classical lines of thought. By the interaction the two representatives [the quantum states] have become entangled." -Schrödinger

So there you have it folks--MDT provides a *physical* model for the characteristic trait of quantum mechanics while also providing the simple, elementary foundations of Einstein's Relativity. Einstein backed into x4=ict after proposing his two postualtes of relativity. He then never fully accepted quantum mechanics, and he brushed aside Godel's concerns about time travel into the past, frozen time, and the block universe, which physicists also ignore today.

A great thing about String Theory/antitheories is that it compeletely ignores all of these foundational questions and paradoxes which MDT resolves.

Chris--I hope that MDT might help shed some light on relativity and its interpretations. Relativity is right. Different frames will disagree about the exact times and places of events. But there is but one *physical* reality. There is but one clock that is *physically* running slow.

In a photon's frame time has stopped. Ergo, consider a photon that bounces back and forth beteen two mirrors at oposite ends of the universe. According to that photon, nothing ever happened. Now this is an extreme case, and many say that a photon's rest frame is undefined, so then let us consider a space traveller who travels across the universe at .999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999999999999999999999c according to their frame, nothing will have happened while thousands of years will have passed here on earth. Because they have almost cuaght up with the fourth expanding dimension, their own watch has *physically* slowed down, but in no way has this *physically* affected the flow of time anywhere in the universe. Ergo Einstein was right--his theory should have been called "The Theory of Invariance."

Had only Einstein accepted quantum mechanics' reality, then he might have moved beyond the block universe and seen the unification staring at him in the face, when Minkwoski wrote x4=ict, implying dx4/dt=ic.

Now a funny thing on the internet is that people are suddenly saying that Minkowski came up with MDT--not me. So MDT is both not worthy of an award from FQXI, and Minkowski also invented it (although he never published it, as I am the only one who has ever written the equation dx4/dt=ic and mined its *physical* meaning in MDT's postulate: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions.)

Above Lawrence was also saying that MDT was common knowledge in his undergraduate physics curriculum, so I wrote to him:

"Hello Lawrence,

You write, "I couldn't help but concur with the dx4/ct = ic comment Aguirre made. All this tells us is that everthing is moving at the speed of light! Even while sitting down we are all moving along the 4th coordinate direction at the speed of light, times i = sqrt{-1}. Something I remember from undergraduate study."

Nowhere in any physics text (nor previosuly published papers) does it state that dx4/dt=ic, and yet you say you remember it from undergraduate study!

My theory is now simultaneously both utterly rejected by the FQXI experts and common knowledge in undergraduate physics programs!!

I guess FQXI can use this as proof of parallel universes. Finally MDT will be embraced by the anonymous FQXI judges in a new paper entitled "dx4/dt=ic: The Ontological Proof of Parallel Universes in The Landscape: MDT is Both Common Undergad Knowledge and Crackpottery in The Multiverse."

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." --Arthur Schopenhauer German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

My prediction over the next year is that a well-funded antitheorist will hype MDT to Fox News as "fabulous" whereupon Bill O'Reilly will interview them about how they came up with it on their own and how their career suffered and they were no longer invited to Antitheory/String Theory conferences in Aspen and Hawaii.

Well, I will be sleeping for a couple days Chris, but you are exactly right about all your investigations! Although the math in relativity works time and time again, the *physical* interpretation seems to vary and be inconsistent. I hope MDT can afford some consistency by postulating absolute rest--the three spatial dimensions--and absolute motion--the fourth expanding dimension. Ergo there is but one veclocity for all objects through spacetime--c--which is slaways split between the frame at absolute rest (rest mass) and the frame in absolute motion (photon/energy).

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Hello Chris,

Loved your review of the Ohanian book!

Everyone should read: http://www.cheely.com/BookReview.pdf

Loved the quote, "Ohanian's chapter on the E=mc2 saga provides an eye-opening experience for any who may have become acquainted with the Einstein story through the science entertainment industry."

Yes--so many people just crunch the numbers and never worry about the beuatiful mysteries and paradoxes--the subtleties and contradictions where all the opportunity lies! They actually think more opportunity lies in fabricating gian voids and multiverses, as opposed to physics!

The fun thing about MDT is that it fully supports Einstein's relativity while also supporting quantum mechanics (which Einstein was never quite happy with), while also lending some insight into the twin paradox, the EPR paradox, and the paradoxical nature of relativity's seeming want to freeze time and establish a block universe, thusly ridding the world of the flow of time. MDT unfreezes time, liberating us form the block uinverse with dx4/dt=ic! The block universe is a mathematical artefact when we draw time as fourth dimension on a piece of paper, but time, as measured on the ticking seconds on our watch, is not a dimension--rather it is a phenomena that arises because of energy propagating in the three spatial dimensions, as it is but matter cuaght in the fourth expanding dimension! Hence time inherits qualities of teh fourth dimension in relativity's math, but there is no time dimension--no past out there, and no established future. The fourth dimension is constantly expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and the more one is roated into it, the shorter one's length/projection appears (like a rotation in any other dimension), as one approaches the speed of light.

There is a difference between inertial frames and time can flow at physically different rates in different frames.

A lot of the confusion stems from the interlinked nature of time and measurement and light.

Take a twin traveling at .999999999999c away from me. He will see my clock ticking slower and I will see his clock ticking slower. Now one of us, in order to get up to that speed, had to have undergone acceleration. And whoever that is will be the one who is truly aging more slowly, not because of the effects only during the acceleration, but because the acceleration increased one's velocity relative to the stationary three spatial dimensions, while also increasing one's velocity relative to the fourth dimension, which is moving relative to the three spatial dimensions at c. Moving light clocks run slow because a bouncing photon in a light clock will hit the mirrors less frequently, as the photon is traveling along with the fourth dimension, and the faster a light clock moves, the more it catches up with the expanding fourth dimension, and the longer it takes for the photon to reach the mirror.

One of the funniest things is that so many physicists will tell you that dimensions cannot move. They will take a whole year of differential geometry and still come away believing that dimensions cannot move.

Think about the words "differential" and "geometry." If they don't imply moving dimensions when combined, I don't know what does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_geometry

And again, think about the word Geometrodynamics!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometrodynamics

The geometry of space and time are moving! That String Theorist have ignored this background-dependence for thirty years while hogging all the bookshelves and tenured faculty positions for an antitheory is a sin beyond belief!

And if dimensions can move, then by definition, they must be able to move relative to one another. And so it is no great leap of faith to suggest that the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, espeically when Minkowski wrote x=ict, naturally implying dx4/dt=ic.

These are historic times, and it is a great triumph for physics that MDT should have its very own forum for its simple postualte and equation that celebrates a hitherto unsung universal invariant: dx4/dt=ic.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Elliot,

Thanks for the kind words about my research and my book review. And regarding your travel and slumber schedule - I hope all is well.

You said:

Ergo the clock on the moving spaceship *physically* ran slower. You could actually send him the results of the measurements, and while he will yet argue that your clock was running slower as he is receding from it, he will be able to agree with your setup and experiment--less time elapsed for him in a *physical* manner.

I say: I couldn't agree more! But what you just described is not possible within the framework of Einstein's relativity.

You said:

Now while it is true that the two could disagree as to who is length contracted and whose time is dilated while the inertial frames pass one another, time is going slower in one frame than the other.This is because teh fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and there is thus an absolute rest and absolut motion, though it is impossible to measure due to the tautological link between space, time, and light.

I say: I don't have the luxury of assuming that. The observance of one, in itself, doesn't verify the other.

In your next post you said:

Take a twin traveling at .999999999999c away from me. He will see my clock ticking slower and I will see his clock ticking slower. Now one of us, in order to get up to that speed, had to have undergone acceleration. And whoever that is will be the one who is truly aging more slowly, not because of the effects only during the acceleration, but because the acceleration increased one's velocity relative to the stationary three spatial dimensions

I say:

Again - I agree with your analysis (except for the part of the reason being a velocity increase relative to the 3 spatial dimensions - I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying I can't possibly commit to that conclusion based on the evidence) But again, your analysis does not agree with Einstein's relativity. Any preferential time dilation during interial travel is in direct conflict with Einstein. Personally, I think this is a good thing. Because, although I haven't meditated deeply on your theory yet- I can say, at least on the surface, it increases the chances of at least some of MDT being possible.

Thanks Chris!

Firstoff, some twitter proofs of MDT (limited to 140 characters)!

SR: photon is stationary in 4th dimension. QM: photon is probability wave expanding @ c. Ergo: 4th dimension expands @ c & MDT: dx4/dt=ic

http://twitter.com/45surf

Yes--you write, "But again, your analysis does not agree with Einstein's relativity. Any preferential time dilation during interial travel is in direct conflict with Einstein."

Yes--it is impossible for the inertial twins to ascertain whose digital clock is the one which is running slower due to the fact that each bases their measurement on the time they receive the light pulses from the other one's clock. Relativity's math shows this to be true. MDT agrees wholeheartedly with MDT's math, but it adds the fact that relativity's math arises from the deeper foundations--that of dx4/dt=ic. Although the two inertial twins are unable to measure their absolute motion relative to the three stationary spatial dimensions while in motion, the twin who underwent less acceleration is in fact traveling more slowly relative to the three spatial dimensions. This will be the one aging more.

MDT, by proposing that the three spatial dimensions are absolutely stationary, while the fourth dimension is moving relative to them at c, accounts for the fact that while two intertial twins can disagree on who is aging less due to the tautoligcal nature of light and time and time and light, one of them is actually againg lessm!

Because Einstein never saw that x4=ict and his two postualtes of relativity come from dx4/dt=ic, he never perceived existence of absolute rest (the three spatial dimensions) and absolute motion (the fourth expanding dimension).

In fact, this thought experiment proves MDT:

"Above you flies a rocket with your twin travelling at .999999999999999999c with a clock and you see that it is synchronized with yours as it passes just overhead. The rocket travels 186,000 miles to a marker in space, stationary in your frame. When it passes the marker the clock is read at the marker. The spaceship never slows down but just keeps going. The frames remain inertial throughout the entire experiment!!

A stationary friend at the marker, whose clock is synchronized with yours, sends you the spaceship's clock's reading that it registered when it passed the marker. And you see that almost no time had elapsed on its clock (due to its high velocity and the standard equations for time dilation), while one full second had passed for you.

Ergo the clock on the moving spaceship *physically* ran slower. You could actually send him the results of the measurements, and while he will yet argue that your clock is running slower as he is receding from it, he will be able to agree with your setup and experiment--less time elapsed for him in a *physical* manner.

Now while it is true that the two could disagree as to who is length contracted and whose time is dilated while the inertial frames pass one another, time is going slower in one frame than the other.

So yes! The above experiment agrees with relativity in the simple sense that each twin will see the other's clock running slower! But, the above experiment also shows that the twin's clock travelling at .9999999c was physically running slower! So the mathemtics of relativity presented a reality which obsucred the physical reality. This reflects the fact that:

1) light is how we measure things

2) time is linked to light because time is linked to change and all change derives from dx4/dt=ic or matter surfing the fourth dimension

The fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, and there is thus an absolute rest and absolut motion, though it is impossible to measure due to the tautological link between space, time, and light.

So MDT can actually account for the above experimental results of the thought experiment, while relativity cannot. MDT proposes an absolute rest, however difficult it is to measure it due to the link bewteen measurement and light, light and time, and time and space.

Chris--I think these paradoxes you have focused on are a great opportunity!! I am currently tired but I am looking forward to spending the next few months working with you on this!

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

wikipedia.org reports: "Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7.2 ìs per day." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#Relativity There we have it folks! Every day the "twins paradox" experiment is carried out, and it is shown that the moving clocks *physically* run slower! And finally MDT shows why this is by proposing a frame of absolute rest--the three spatial dimensions--and a frame of absolute motion--the fourth expanding dimension: dx4/dt=ic. All of Einstein's/Minkowski's relativity naturally emerges from MDT, which also provides a *physical* model for entropy, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, and time and all its arrows and assymmetries, while also resolving the twin paradox, the EPR paradox, and liberating us from the paradoxical implications of Godel's block universe and frozen time. MDT provides both Eisntein's "elementary foundations" of relativity and Schrodenger's "characteristic trait of quantum mechanics." Please see the attached paper.

Hello Chris,

I read your longer paper on the treadmill last night. Great, humble, well-cited, and naturally curious research, cleary presented (with your trademark humor)!

MDT proposes a frame of absolute rest--the three spatial dimesnions. And too, MDT proposes a frame of absolute motion--the fourth expanding dimension, which expands at c, or dx4/dt=ic.

All of relativity naturally emerges from this. Begin with a four dimensional universe x1, x2, x3, x4 where dx4/dt=ic, and relativity emerges. MDT agrees 100% with relativity's math, while also resolving the twin paradox by showing that relativity's math derives from a more fundamental physical reality--dx4/dt=ic!

While it is impossible to measure absolute/relative rest/motion in any given inertial frame, one can certainly see absolute motion! All light has absolute motion--hence it has zero mass at rest, or zero rest mass. Now where light might seem to travel slower (gravitational fields, etc.), time also travels slower, ensuring the constancy of c! As clocks are fundamentally light clocks, as they depend on changes in energy, c is always measured relative to c! And hance it is always c! Please see the attached paper for MDT's treatment of light clocks.

Back to the twin paradox. Check out this paper:

http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/vc/physics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf

It shows how the GPS clocks in the distant satellites conduct the "twin paradox" experiment every day! The authors write, "To resolve the twin paradox, we should adopt the reference frame at rest. In 1905, Einstein [2]

pointed out that we do not need the absolute space frame defined by ether; however, he did not state that special relativity denies the existence of the absolute space frame. In 1920 [3], he stated that the special relativity does not deny ether, and declared that general relativity requires ether [3]. We consider that special relativity is compatible with the absolute space frame, in that the Lorentz invariance does not require modification by the adoption of an absolute space frame. In this discussion, we refute Einstein's 1905 hypothesis; however, the discussion is carried out on the basis of the special relativity theory. A tremendous amount of data concerning special relativity depends on Lorentz invariance; however, these data do not confirm or deny the existence of the absolute space frame. Thus special relativity with ether can be considered." --http://arxiv1.library.cornell.edu/vc/physics/papers/0502/0502007v2.pdf (Oyamazuka, Oiwa-cho, Toyohashi, Aichi)

Now a great thing about MDT is that just like relativity, it has no need for an "ether." The fundamental difference between MDT and relativity is that MDT predicts all of relativity while also accounting for the twin paradox that is perceived each and every day in the GPS satellites.

Again, relativity is right, but MDT, by showing relativity's "elementary foundations" which Einstein yet sought, shows that all of relativity may be derived by postulating three stationary spatial dimensions and a fourth dimension expanidng at c. This allows a frame of absolute rest and a frame of absolute motion in the context of relativity. Although difficult (or impossible) to measure in any given inertial frame, the GPS satellites do in fact prove the existence of frames that are "more" stationary than others in an absolute manner. MDT shows why this is so--there is a frame of absolute rest--the three stationary spatial dimensions--and a frame of absolute motion--the fourth expanding dimension. All light and energy exist in the frame of absolute motion, caught upon the fourth expanding dimension: dx4/dt=ic.Attachment #1: 3_MDT_MOVING_DIMENSIONS_THEORY_EXAMINES_THE_GRAVITATIONAL_REDSHIFT_SLOWING_OF_CLOCKS.pdfAttachment #2: 5_MDT_Unites_Relativityand_Quantum_Entanglement.pdf

RE: ON THE PARADOCIXAL ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE & MDT'S RESOLUTION OF THE PARADOX OF THE TWINS PARADOX

Henceforth all physicists who do not agree with MDT ought not use GPS systems.

"How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." --Niels Bohr

In his 1905 paper on relativity, Einsetin wrote, "If there are two stationary clocks at point A and point B and the clocks are synchronized, and the clock at point A moves to the clock at point B at a velocity v, upon its arrival at point B, the clocks will no longer be in sync. The clock in motion (A) will be lagging behind the stationary clock (B)." This is naturally supported by the daily GPS "twin paradox" experiments where the moving satellite clocks run slower by 7,000 us, and too it is natrually supported by MDT's postulate of a fourth dimension (in absolute motion) expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions (at absolute rest) at c: dx4/dt=ic.

Today paradoxes, curiosity, logic, and reason are oft swept under the table by the leading atitheorist/corporate CEO/physicists. In their place they establish a well-funded antitheory groupthink regime with fancy letterhead and a sycophantic PR/social media team dwarfing the size of the 1927 Solvay conference on Quantum Mechanics:

http://photos.dabydeen.com/2006/07/brain-power.html

But yet, paradoxes persist, calling us to adventure in their resolution!

MDT resovles:

1) The EPR Paradox (via the nonlocality of the expanding fourth dimension: dx4/dt=ic)

2) MDT resolves the paradox of block time/frozen time (via weaving change into the fundamental fabric of spacetime with dx4/dt=ic, and showing that block time is but a mathemtical artefact of treating time as a dimension, instead of as a phenomena which emerges because teh fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions)

3) MDT resolves the twins paradox (by proposing a frame of absolute rest--the trhee spatial dimension, and a frame of aboslute motion--the fourth expanding dimension).

To all those antitheorists working on decades-old dead-end nontehories who think the twin paradox was resolved, think again.

In his well-researched and reasoned, most eloquent paper, Chris Kennedy shows how leading physicists, form Born, to Wheeler, to Taylor, to Mermin, to Einstein fiercely disagree about the twin paradox (most of this can be found around p. 15 of http://www.cheely.com/second_T.pdf):

"In the 1962 edition of his book Einstein's Theory of Relativity, world-renowned physicist Max Born explains the twin clock paradox by endorsing the Einstein 1918 version. He demonstrates mathematically how, during the constant velocity portion of the journey, clock A will see B run slower, while at the same time B will see A run slower. (This will be explained in detail later.) He shows how this is compensated for during the acceleration/ deceleration phases for the traveling clock - so that when they reunite, the clock that journeyed will be running behind the clock that remained stationary. He concludes by saying that "the clock paradox is due to a false application of the special theory of relativity, namely, to a case in which the methods of the general theory should be applied." Is this the opinion of all physicists? Well, let's continue. In the 1999 edition of their 300 page relativity book, Spacetime Physics, John Archibald Wheeler and Edwin F. Taylor, address the twin paradox by asking the question: Do we need general relativity? And they quickly answer, No. They further sum up the paradox by saying: "there is never any contradiction between a single clock in one frame and a single clock in any other frame. In this case special relativity can do the job just fine." Wheeler should know, right? He coauthored a textbook on gravitation and if I'm not mistaken, was the one who coined the phrase "black hole." So if there were anyone who was considered an expert in the areas of special relativity and general relativity, it would be Wheeler."

"Next we have Dartmouth College Professor Ronald C. Lasky. Professor Lasky describes his take on the twin paradox in a 2003 Scientific American article this way: When the paradox is addressed, it is usually done so only briefly, by saying that the one who feels the acceleration is the one who is younger at the end of the trip. While the result is correct, the explanation is misleading. Because of these types of incomplete explanations, to many partially informed people, the accelerations appear to be the issue. Therefore it is believed that the general theory of relativity is required to explain the paradox. Of course, this conclusion is based on yet another mistake, since we don't need general relativity to handle the accelerations. The paradox can be unraveled by special relativity alone, and the accelerations incurred by the traveler are incidental. Lasky uses the concept of length contraction to justify the traveler's clock lagging behind upon returning. As you can see, he makes it very clear that gravity and acceleration described in general relativity have no business in the explanation of clock

discrepancies. . . In recent years, however, Einstein's 1918 version, endorsed by Max Born, has been making a comeback. In his 2005 book, It's About Time, physicist N. David Mermin discusses general relativity as a solution to the paradox. Additionally, O. G. Gron, from the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, provides a very lengthy mathematical argument for why the general relativity portion of the journey is essential for resolving the paradox. This argument is presented in the February 2007 edition of Current Science as a critical response to a December 2005 paper published in the same journal by C. S. Unnikrishnan. In his paper, Unnikrishnan provides an in-depth look at relativity, including a thorough discussion of the differences between the Einstein of 1905 and the Einstein of 1918. Unnikrishnan provides an argument for why he thinks the Einstein 1918 version does not work and it is this point that Gron challenges in his response. Even more recently, in the American Journal of Physics, Physicist Dan Styer devotes a special section of his September 2007 paper to the twin paradox. Although his mathematical approach is different, he arrives at the same conclusion as Born, Mermin and Gron: The General Relativity/acceleration phase of the traveler is the necessary key to providing the solution to the paradox. And if you're wondering what physics students have been taught during the past thirty years or so, we have submitted a stack of college physics textbooks as evidence which, upon review, will clearly show that there is no consensus there either. Second Thoughts 17 So apparently, what we have, unless my client and I have missed something, is a decades-old theory called relativity, developed by Albert Einstein, which to this day has no working explanation that all scientists can agree on. Now, I wonder what psychosis the pro-general relativists think the non-general relativists are suffering from? And do the scientists that don't deem general relativity necessary, think the pro-general relativists are paranoid? Delusional? Overachievers? Too detail oriented? And they want to stop my client from teaching physics?" --Chris Kennedy, http://www.cheely.com/second_T.pdf

Chris actually performs a lot more physics in the above passage than all the tenured antitheorists combined, who are off skiing in Aspen and surfing in Hawaii.

Albert Einstein: "The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science."

"Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulae. But thought and ideas, not formulae, are the beginning of every physical theory." --Einstein/Infeld, The Evolution of Physics

MDT's idea: the fourth dimension is expanding relative to the three spatial dimensions at c, or dx4/dt=ic.

And MDT explains the twins paradox in a more fundamental way, by provding the "elementary foundations" of Einstein's relativity.

It is not every day that a new, fundamental universal invariant is proposed along with a new *physical* model of spacetime--the very stage for all of physics. Nor is it every day that a common *physical* principle is used to explain the following as emergent phenomena: time and all its arrows and assymetries, relativity (relativity derives from MDT), entropy, quantum entanglement and nonlocality, all the dualities, and Huygens' Principle and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It is the nonlocal wave character of the fourth dimensions' expansion that gives rise to nonlocality, entanglement, Huygens' Principle across all realms, the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle, and all wave-particle (nonlocal/local) duality, as well as the dualities between space/time, mass/energy. Photons are but matter/momenergy surfing the fourth expanding dimension. And as they are timeless/ageless, they stay in but one place in teh ofurth dimension, as they propagate at c through our three spatial dimensions, defined by spherically-symmetric wavefronts of probability; which rests upon the physical expansion of the fourth dimension.

Towads the end of his paper, Chris Kennedy has an excellent, exalting, and illuminating dialogue regarding the Twins Paradox in the conetxt of the GPS System: http://www.cheely.com/second_T.pdf

The dialogue, penned in the tradition of Plato's Dialogues and Scorates' spirit, is pure genius. Finally MDT accounts for why GPS works by stipulating that there is indeed a frame of absolute rest--the three stationary spatial dimensions--and a frame in absolute motion--the fourth expanding dimension: dx4/dt=ic. All of the math of relativity naturally emerges, along with its proper interpretation that allows for GPS, which reveals the true anture of the twin paradox each and every day.

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Henceforth all physicists who do not agree with MDT ought not use GPS systems. Or at least they ought not allow special relativity's 7,000 ns daily correction to the GPS clock, which would put them off by more than a mile every day, as light travels about 1 foot/ns. (I rememebr using this fact as a timing device in the labs at Princeton by adding and taking away the length of wire cables carrying signals! It was in the lifetime of the muon experiment. Nobel Laureate Joseph Taylor was teaching the class on experimental physics)

Wait a second! Maybe the GPS systems of the antitheory indisiders are off! Maybe that is why all the fqxi antitheorists can never seem to locate the cutting-edge fqxi MDT forums which provide Einstein's "elementary foundations" of relativity and a physical model for Schrodenger's "characteristic trait of quantum mechancis--entanglement" while also resolving the twins paradox, the EPR paradox, and unfreezing time! Perhaps the antitheorists are off by one more mile each and every day due to the anti-MDT GPS systems in their fqxi-funded BMWs which neglect the 7,000 ns corrections due to MDT's correct interpretation of relativity!

Albert Einstein, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein, "The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them."

Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, felt that the pioneer scientist must have " a vivid intuitive imagination, for new ideas are not generated by deduction, but by artistically creative imagination."

It is by intuition that we discover and by logic we prove.

--Henri Poincaré, Mathematician

"I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning." --Plato

It is hanging in the Boston Museum of Science, and it seems to agree with Albert Einstein, Galileo, and Max Born:

http://www.ilfilosofo.com/blog/2008/04/12/plato-mathematician-quote/

"I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... how could we rely on probability predictions if we do not refer to something real and objective? (Max Born on Quantum Theory)"

Max Born wrote, "All great discoveries in experimental physics have been made due to the intuition of men who made free use of models which for them were not products of the imagination but representations of real things."

"Gradually the conviction gained recognition that all knowledge about things is exclusively a working-over of the raw material furnished by the senses. ... Galileo and Hume first upheld this principle with full clarity and decisiveness." --(Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions)

To reject *physical* intuition and the experimental reality of the GPS system and replace it with the nonsensical block universe MDT does away with seems to go exactly against the spirit by which physics has ever advanced, according to Galileo, Einstein, and other noble physicists.

Legend has it that Copernicus received his first hard copy of his book on his death bed.

"Despite urgings from many quarters, Copernicus delayed with the publication of his book, perhaps from fear of criticism -- a fear delicately expressed in the subsequent Dedication of his masterpiece to Pope Paul III. Scholars disagree on whether Copernicus' concern was limited to physical and philosophical objections from other natural philosophers, or whether he was also concerned about religious objections from theologians." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

"Copernicus died in Frombork on 24 May 1543. Legend has it that the first printed copy of De revolutionibus was placed in his hands on the very day that he died, allowing him to take farewell of his life's work. He is reputed to have wakened from a stroke-induced coma, looked at his book, and died peacefully." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

Well, contrast that with the "publish or perish" here-and-now, short-term forces that drive our journals, which contain tens of thousands of papers that probably won't change the world as much as Copernicus's book--a book written not for tenure nor title nor grants--but for Truth.

And so I think, that if you are born with an idea (such as dx4/dt=ic), and the idea keeps haunting you, over time you ought respect and honor that idea. For it would be dishonorable to turn and run from what you see as Truth and join the antitheorist regimes, even if it were more profitable. I would imagine, that if you had any sense of honor, you would see that you really have no choice but to stick with logic and reason, with truth and beauty, with simplicity and common sense; even if they preach and teach otherwise.

"Some one will say: And are you not ashamed, Socrates, of a course of life which is likely to bring you to an untimely end? To him I may fairly answer: There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong, acting the part of a good man or of a bad. Whereas, upon your view, the heroes who fell at Troy were not good for much, and the son of Thetis above all, who altogether despised danger in comparison with disgrace; and when he was so eager to slay Hector, his goddess mother said to him, that if he avenged his companion Patroclus, and slew Hector, he would die himself, "Fate," she said, in these or the like words, "waits for you next after Hector;" he, receiving this warning, utterly despised danger and death, and instead of fearing them, feared rather to live in dishonor, and not to avenge his friend. "Let me die forthwith," he replies, "and be avenged of my enemy, rather than abide here by the beaked ships, a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth." Had Achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man's place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything but of disgrace. And this, O men of Athens, is a true saying." -The Apology

Best,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

E pur si muove!! dx4/dt=ic!!