Real-Time Physics

John C,

Think how the brain processes information, by taking very small snapshots of perception, much like a movie camera taking a series of still shots, then projecting them by shining a strobe light through each in turn. So the brain has to do something similar, in order to extract information from the flood of sensory input. Otherwise it would quickly melt into white noise. Then it reconstructs a narrative sequence of motion and action from this. The result is the flood of input is turned/filtered into a stream of consciousness. That is why time is so important to our conception of reality.

Now consider how the Copenhagen Interpretation defines reality; As a sequence of measurements of an otherwise statistical fog. Yes, we can only perceive the reality our brain records, but the actual filtering process of the brain does set some of the biases. For one thing, the whole notion that reality is fundamentally information has to be considered in light of the fact the brain is designed to process information. As opposed to the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems, that process energy. Fact is, energy is what manifests information and information is what defines energy.

As I point out, while we experience time as a series of events, past to future, the underlaying reality is the changing configuration of the energy means it is actually future becoming past, as these events come into being and then fade.

Now consider how Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity treat time; Both as the sequence from past to future. The problem with this is it really does require a Newtonian view. That of time as this universal flow from past into the future. GR essentially pulls this reality out from that single thread of time into a four dimensional geometry, that might best be thought of as a tapestry of relationships, in which duration becomes another vector connecting events according to the speed of light. As it is light which is the actual energy exchange. This is quite a brilliant feat, but when taken literally, rather than just a very effective model of energy relationships, it results in this very bizarre notion that there exists this fourth dimensional "blocktime," in which all of history is suspended out there in the geometry made real. This leads to ideas like time traveling through wormholes and that the present is only an illusion of action. It also provides the conceptual foundation for the idea of an expanding universe and that is a whole story unto itself. One of the points I make against it is; If space is what you measure with a ruler and the expanding universe model still assumes a constant speed of light against which to judge this expansion, how is that that space expands, but the ruler doesn't? The best I get in response is some feeble argument that the light is just being carried along by the expansion, but that completely overlooks the fact you use the constant as the denominator and the variable as the numerator, so trying to say the variable is really the denominator is truly horrible math.

QM does use that external, Newtonian timeline, but then it ends up with superpositions, multiworlds and cats in purgatory. That is because it is trying to model how to go from a decidedly determined past into an inconveniently probabilistic future. Which is the direction that Newtonian flow takes.

On the other hand, if you are not trying to lay all these actions out in some historical narrative and actually just sit back and watch; What happens? Stuff happens. Then it recedes into the "past," as other stuff happens. Probabilities collapse into actualities. Before the race, there are ten potential winners, but after it runs, there is only one actual winner. The multiworlds and the superpostions are always one step in the future, then something happens. The atom decays, the cat dies. Its life energy radiates out into cat heaven.

As for GR and how all those clocks can run at different rates and still be in the same reality? They are simply recording particular actions, not some general "flow." You would think that if time were a flow from past to future, the faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but the opposite is true. It ages/burns quicker and so falls into the past more rapidly.

Regards,

John M

Ps, As for issues with tech, send a note to the moderators. Sometimes they respond to the comments. Or use the forums email, sidebar on the left.

Otherwise just cut and paste. There doesn't seem to be much concern over posting length.

John M.

I think we're on the same page. As in the George Ellis article *Flow of Time* The crux of the problem is in the time reversibility inherent to modern formulations of physical laws. QM+GR=0.

At the outset of Relativity the proponents of 4D Spacetime decided that to keep it simpler they would just assume the scale of length to be the same for both time and space! Hey! Why not... space ain't time anyway! So now we have a 'block universe' without compasses or clocks.

"...cats in purgatory..." Mary will love that!

John C,

"The crux of the problem is in the time reversibility inherent to modern formulations of physical laws."

That goes to the issue of treating reality as only information. As energy manifesting information, since the energy is both conserved and dynamic, it is constantly creating new information by dissolving the old, ie. "Can't have your cake and eat it too." So reversing time isn't just going the other way on the time vector, but making the energy go in reverse and that goes against the nature of the energy!

" proponents of 4D Spacetime decided that to keep it simpler they would just assume the scale of length to be the same for both time and space!"

Mathematically it's not much different to measure between peaks of a wave/distance, as it is to measure them passing a marker/duration, but space and time are not quite the same. When you measure space, you are measuring space, but when you measure time, you are measuring action.

The idea of space as three dimensional is an outgrowth of the xyz coordinate system and that is a function of defining space in relation to the center point, which is how we perceive reality. Then as this point of reference interacts with its environment, it creates a series of events, thus the narrative effect of time. Consider how lots of these points of reference interact together and it is more of a thermodynamic effect, yet no one thinks of temperature as anything more than an effect of and measure of the thermodynamic activity, but we could use ideal gas laws to create a volumetemperature model, similar to spacetime. Much as the Big Bang theory presumably measures the expansion of the universe in terms of the cooling of background radiation.

By the way, if we consider the entirely logical assumption that cosmic redshift is due to the expansion of lightwaves and thus proportional to distance, then this cosmic background radiation would be the solution to Olber's paradox; The light of ever more distance sources, shifted completely off the visible scale.

I could go on, but I'm starting to wander in different directions and have to go to work. Horses don't take Sundays off.

Thanks for taking this seriously. Hey Tom, John C must be delusional as well.

Regards,

John M

The Ultimate Catastrophe in Physics

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

The catastrophic view is shared by almost all theoretical physicists and philosophers of science (although most of them prefer to remain silent):

Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

"Profound revision of fundamental physical principles" implies looking for, identifying and, in the end, abandoning some false principle that has led to the catastrophe. Is there such an activity in physics? Yes there is - campaigns against Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, quite noisy sometimes, start and restart but then never reach their goal (the false postulate remains well and kicking):

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

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes using the word "relative." (...) "Perhaps relativity is too restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."

Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten: "A group of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book, Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same - 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

Pentcho Valev

Hi Pentcho,

An interesting compilation.

Regards,

Akinbo

Pentcho,

A well-but approach might be more promising than your attack on c.

Well, Michelson disproved the existence of a light-carrying stationary frame of reference in space; but this did merely preclude the existence of a natural point zero in space not relative distances in space.

Well, if Einstein's second postulate was wrong then this could explain a lot; but shouldn't those who are unhappy e.g. with SR and reversibility of time also try and question the first postulate? Are covariance and invariance justified?

Well, individual perspectives are different from each other; but does this imply that there is no common structure to some extent?

Eckard

Eckard

Pentcho,

If only they and you looked in the right direction for the solution they would find it appearing before their eyes.

If all ions re-scatter light at c, yet they can be in 'systems' which can move relatively, then light speed c is continually spontaneously localised (CSL) to be c with respect to all matter it encounters. The quantum mechanism also includes the LT. Earth's bow shock is the perfect model. The 2-fluid plasma implementing the Baryonic/ECI frame transition.

This model resolves all the problems in existence, producing the 'discrete fields' from the IQbit described in my (community 2nd) essay this year, with the previous (all top 10 finalist but overlooked) precursor essays (and papers) laying the dynamic foundations and deriving other aspects.

2020 Vision

Much Ado About Nothing

The Intelligent Bit

The original error is also identified; I was the assumption that disallowing an 'absolute' background also disallowed relatively moving fluid local background frames. Stokes MHD model was a correct basis, just incomplete. Einstein's postulates are recovered by the DFM, but without the nonsensical interpretations but now allowing the apparent significantly FTL quasar jets now confirmed. Note that all the cited 'wide evidence' for SR supports only the postulates. It's the added 'baggage' which needs to be lost.

The simple proposition is just a new logical way of looking at what we've become too familiar with assuming. It then 'first looks wrong', as Feynman predicted. But it needs kinetic visualisation skills not complex mathematics to comprehend. The maths is simply c' = c, via delta Lambda, and observer dependent (but only for observers made of matter!). The empirical support has proven quite overwhelming.

If you put your great energies into pushing in the precisely correct direction they would stop being counter productive and perhaps get results.

Best wishes

Peter

Einstein's 1954 Death Prognosis

Einstein made a prognosis in 1954: Physics was going to die if, and Einstein considered it "entirely possible", "field concept" and "continuous structures" turned out to be the wrong basis of physics:

Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Sixty years later one can ask: Is physics dead? The answer seems to be "yes", although euphemisms like "crisis within the deepest foundations of physics" are often used:

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

Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

"Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

Hilton Ratcliffe: "Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and physics departments at major universities with grand histories in physical science are closing down for lack of interest. It is a crisis in my view. (...) If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense."

"However, for the past century, theoretical physicists have been sending a different message. They have rejected causality in favor of chance, logic in favor of contradictions, and reality in favor of fantasy. The science of physics is now riddled with claims that are as absurd as those of any religious cult."

"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond..."

Back to Einstein's 1954 death prognosis. Needless to say, "based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures" is a euphemism. Theoretical physics, being a deductive science, is actually based on well-known assumptions, some possibly related to "field concept" and "continuous structures". So if physics is going to crumble, as Einstein suggests, one of those assumptions must be false. Which one? Is there an assumption in modern physics which, on the one hand, is closely related to "field concept" and "continuous structures", and, on the other, is so important and indispensable that its falsehood can destroy a whole branch of science? The only such assumption is Einstein's 1905 light postulate according to which the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter:

"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false - the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emisssion theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Einstein teaching his worshippers that, according to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process. In other words, the turn-around acceleration is responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by Albert Einstein: "...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated) coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory. (...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2. However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4. This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought up."

Some worshippers find it profitable to stick closely to the Divine Teaching:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Other worshippers can see no reason why the turn-around acceleration should be responsible for the youthfulness of the travelling twin:

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev

Special Relativity Incompatible with Doppler Effect

Roger Barlow: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/lambda waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/lambda. So f'=(c+v)/lambda."

Thibault Damour: "Or, en relativité restreinte, les fréquences mesurées par deux observateurs en mouvement relatif sont différentes (effet Doppler-Fizeau). Pour une vitesse relative faible, l'effet (f'-f)/f est égal à v/c."

Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v has a definite physical meaning: it is the (variable) speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Special relativity is violated.

Einsteinians' only objection is that the formula f'=f(1+v/c) is an approximation - the relativistic corrections (time dilation) are not taken into account. However, if v is small enough ("pour une vitesse relative faible"), the relativistic corrections "are negligible here", which means that both f'=f(1+v/c) and c'=c+v are virtually exact. Let us still add the relativistic corrections (time dilation IS taken into account):

f' = f(1+v/c)(gamma) = (c+v)(gamma)/L = c'/L

where c'=(c+v)(gamma) is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. If v is small enough, we have c'=c+v with or without the relativistic corrections, and the violation of special relativity is more than obvious.

The Albert Einstein Institute clarifies the effects by analysing a scenario where the wavelength is replaced by the distance between subsequent light pulses:

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift..."

That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f=c/L (L is the distance between subsequent pulses), the frequency measured by a receiver moving towards the light source with speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving receiver. Special relativity is violated.

Again, the relativistic corrections (time dilation IS taken into account) add a factor of gamma:

f' = f(1+v/c)(gamma) = (c+v)(gamma)/L = c'/L

where c'=(c+v)(gamma) is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving receiver. Clearly both the non-relativistic and relativistic Doppler effect violate special relativity. If v is small enough, we have c'=c+v in both cases, which means that the speed of light relative to the receiver varies with the speed of the receiver, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of special relativity.

That the speed of the light waves (relative to the observer/receiver) varies with the speed of the observer/receiver is clearly seen in this video (although Eusebi obeys Ignatius of Loyola's principle and says the velocity remains the same):

Dr Ricardo Eusebi: "Light frequency is relative to the observer. The velocity is not though. The velocity is the same in all the reference frames."

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev

Special Relativity Incompatible with Doppler Effect II

Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift..."

If the frequency measured by the stationary receiver is f=c/L (L is the distance between subsequent pulses), the frequency measured by a receiver moving towards the light source with a small (so that the relativistic corrections are negligible) speed v is:

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c/L)(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L

where c'=c+v is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving receiver. Special relativity is violated.

In this scenario the wavelength of light is replaced by "the distance between subsequent pulses", and the Albert Einstein Institute clearly states that this distance is not affected by the motion of the receiver (it would be too idiotic to state the opposite). That is, if L' is the distance as measured in the moving receiver's frame, and L is the distance as measured in the stationary receiver's frame, we have L'=L. By combining this with f'=c'/L' we come to the conclusion that "the speed of the light waves relative to the moving receiver" is the only possible interpretation of c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

Twin Paradox and Doublethink

According to special relativity, time dilation is mutual so each inertial observer sees the other inertial observer's clock go slower. This implies that, if the effects of the turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin can be ignored, the travelling twin returns both younger (as judged from the sedentary twin's system) and older (as judged from the travelling twin's system) than his sedentary brother. This is obviously fatal for special relativity so in 1918 Einstein was forced to introduce an ad hoc absurdity (there was no other way to save the theory): According to the travelling twin, the sedentary twin's clock runs slow all along but "this is more than compensated" when the traveller sharply turns around and experiences acceleration in the process:

Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein 1918: "According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 [traveller sharply turns around] U2 [the travelling twin's clock] happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1 [the sedentary twin's clock]. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 [traveller moves with constant speed away from sedentary brother] and 4 [traveller moves with constant speed towards sedentary brother]."

So in the last century scientists' minds had to oscillate between two contradictory wisdoms taught by Einsteinians:

Wisdom 1: The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is responsible for her youthfulness and cannot be ignored:

John Norton: "Then, at the end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion, accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite."

Wisdom 2: The turn-around acceleration suffered by the travelling twin is not responsible for her youthfulness and can be ignored:

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, p. 44: "Modified twin paradox *** [There is no turn-around acceleration at all] Consider the following variation of the twin paradox. A, B, and C each have a clock. In A's reference frame, B flies past A with speed v to the right. When B passes A, they both set their clocks to zero. Also, in A's reference frame, C starts far to the right and moves to the left with speed v. When B and C pass each other, C sets his clock to read the same as B's. Finally, when C passes A, they compare the readings on their clocks."

Nowadays scientists' minds do not oscillate between the two contradictory wisdoms anymore. Einsteinians continue to teach them but of all official scientists in Divine Albert's world not one could think of a reason why the contradiction should be discussed, let alone resolved. Just the late effects of doublethink:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."

Pentcho Valev

Initially the exercises in doublethink are accompanied by some internal struggle in scientists' minds:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

The late effects of doublethink are characterized by the absence of any internal struggle - scientists' minds are split into two incompatible but still harmonically coexisting moieties. So in Divine Albert's world it is both safe and normal to teach that the speed of light is both variable and constant in a gravitational field:

Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity."

If life is too dull, Einsteinians can go further and explain to ordinary scientists that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is two times more variable than the speed of ordinary falling objects:

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Ordinary scientists would not react - their minds can easily be split into more than two moieties.

Pentcho Valev

"The Farce of Physics" by Bryan Wallace

Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it."

Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed so one can find stylistic imperfections, undeveloped ideas etc.

See also:

Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters, 1969, pp. 361-367. ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho,

Your Wallace seems to be wrong. The Newtonian corpuscular theory does not postulate that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. It refers to the velocity of the emitter, not of the observer.

While there are indeed emitter theories, aether theories, and SR, I prefer another idea: The speed of light refers to the distance from the location of emitter at the moment of emission to the location of receiver at the moment of arrival. In other words, it does not at all refer to a velocity.

There is no objectively preferred resting point of reference in space. Superposition of waves does not add their velocities.

Best,

Eckard

"The Farce of Physics" by Bryan Wallace II

Time to remember Halton Arp:

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

Just like Bryan Wallace, Halton Arp is an unperson in Divine Albert's world:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana : The Perihelion of Mercury Hoax

The mythology: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."

In fact, Einstein desperately adjusted his theory several times until eventually it "predicted" the known-in-advance precession. Things are even more serious - in 1907 Einstein sets himself the goal "to use his new theory of gravity, WHATEVER IT MIGHT TURN OUT TO BE, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory":

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann équations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Pentcho Valev

On the perihelion advance of Mercury, and "This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized)...

In Newton's, Le Verrier's and Einstein's era, the evidence we now have for invisible "dust" called dark matter was non-existent. Today, to a large extent, we can almost be certain that in moving at 225km/s about our galactic centre, our sun is just a tiny speck being carried around and following the moving invisible "dust" called dark matter. It is also Newtonian that since this dust interacts gravitationally, its density will be many times enhanced in the sun's vicinity.

Question for 'Einsteiniana' apologies to Pentcho: Could that unseen mass, we now call dark matter be Planet Vulcan?

Akinbo

If calculations based on Newton's gravitational law give a wrong prediction, then either:

(A) the law is wrong and should be fixed

or:

(B) some mass is either unaccounted for or assumed to be in the wrong place

No third alternative exists except in Divine Albert's world where the problem is "solved" by changing and fudging equations.

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud suggests that, in the perihelion of Mercury case, the apparent deviation from the Newtonian prediction is due to the non-spherical sun:

"En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un "aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant le bel accord de la théorie."

Pentcho Valev