UNIFYING THE UNUNIFIABLE IN DIVINE ALBERT'S WORLD

The Newtonian conception of time is (implicitly) based on the assumption that the speed of light, as measured by the observer/receiver, varies with the speed of the emitter (c'=c+v), just like the speed of ordinary projectiles. Einstein replaced this assumption with its antithesis, his 1905 second postulate - the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c) - and deduced an absurd conception of time incompatible (even incommensurable) with the Newtonian one:

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

Obviously if c'=c+v is true, c'=c is false and vice versa. Accordingly, it would be logically absurd to unify conceptions and theories based on c'=c+v and conceptions and theories based on c'=c. Yet in Divine Albert's world nothing is logically absurd ("anything goes") as long as all those conceptions and theories "do really well in their own domain":

http://upclose.unimelb.edu.au/episod...n-t-agree-time
Craig Callender: "Just as you said, Shane, the conception of time that quantum mechanics uses really is mostly classical. You can extend it to special relativity, and even there, you have some problems, but you are using this, essentially, Newtonian conception of time. Of course, that raises the big question, the million dollar question about how to unify quantum theory with relativity, since they both seem to do really well in their own domain." [see the interview in print he http://upclose.unimelb.edu.au/printpdf/962 ]

How can two theories both "do really well in their own domain" if at least one of them is based on a false assumption? The short answer is: At least one of the theories is an inconsistency. Here are more elaborate answers:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theorys language and its negation."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

Pentcho Valev

Cosmologists do not try to adopt the idiotic special relativistic time - they just ignore it:

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c5.php
Etienne Klein: "On pourrait s'attendre à voir la cosmologie confirmer la vision d'un espace-temps statique telle que la prône la relativité restreinte. Il n'en est rien. La quasi-unanimité des physiciens s'accorde aujourd'hui sur des modèles d'univers particuliers, dits de big bang, dans lesquels on peut définir un temps cosmologique, lié à l'expansion de l'univers. Sans pour autant s'identifier au temps absolu de Newton, ce temps cosmologique partage avec lui la propriété d'être universel : des observateurs qui ne sont soumis à aucune accélération et ne subissent aucun effet gravitationnel mutuel peuvent en effet synchroniser leurs montres, et celles-ci resteront en phase tout au long de l'évolution cosmique."

Pentcho Valev