How Einsteinians Run From Einstein

'Well, in our country,' said Alice, still panting a little, 'you'd generally get to somewhere else - if you ran very fast for a long time, as we've been doing.' 'A slow sort of country!' said the Queen. 'Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!'

Fifteen years ago Einsteinians realized that Einstein's special relativity is "the root of all the evil":

https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-S.../dp/1422358836
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."

Einsteinians also realized that the marriage of space and time, the unavoidable consequence of Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, was wrong, and started to "whisper about possible grounds for divorce":

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-185331159.html
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. [...] Einstein's famous insistence that the velocity of light is a cosmic speed limit made sense, Minkowski saw, only if space and time were intertwined. [...] Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. [...] Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California, Davis, has thought deeply about choosing clocks, leading him to some troubling realizations. [...] "It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics," says Albrecht, "where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently."

Nowadays Einsteinians reject spacetime as a wrong concept but worship the ripples in spacetime faked by LIGO conspirators. Curiously, Einsteinians also worship Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate, the premise from which spacetime has been deduced, knowing (or not knowing) that the combination "true premise, wrong consequence" is forbidden by logic:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."

https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."

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

https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/
"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."

http://www.bookdepository.com/Time-R.../9780547511726
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..."

One of the most precious things in Einstein's schizophrenic world is the incompatibility of quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity - this incompatibility has been a reliable money-spinner for more than a half a century:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-go-both-ways/
"In quantum theory, a "master clock" ticks away somewhere in the universe, measuring out all processes. But in Einstein's relativity, time is distorted by motion and gravity, so clocks don't necessarily agree on how it is passing - meaning any master clock must, somewhat implausibly, be outside the universe."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/
"The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric."

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/re...essons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...cience.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global – all clocks "tick" uniformly."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0610057.pdf
"One one hand, time in quantum mechanics is a Newtonian time, i.e., an absolute time. In fact, the two main methods of quantization, namely, canonical quantization method due to Dirac and Feynman's path integral method are based on classical constraints which become operators annihilating the physical states, and on the sum over all possible classical trajectories, respectively. Therefore, both quantization methods rely on the Newton global and absolute time. (...) The transition to (special) relativistic quantum field theories can be realized by replacing the unique absolute Newtonian time by a set of timelike parameters associated to the naturally distinguished family of relativistic inertial frames."

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
"In quantum mechanics, time is absolute. The parameter occurring in the Schrödinger equation has been directly inherited from Newtonian mechanics and is not turned into an operator. In quantum field theory, time by itself is no longer absolute, but the four-dimensional spacetime is; it constitutes the fixed background structure on which the dynamical fields act. GR is of a very different nature. According to the Einstein equations (2), spacetime is dynamical, acting in a complicated manner with energy momentum of matter and with itself. The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true.."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ice_queen2.jpg

Pentcho Valev

John Baez, who once played the role of Tomas de Torquemada in the Einsteinian cult, left the sinking ship in 2008:

https://edge.org/response-detail/11356
John Baez 2008: "One of the big problems in physics - perhaps the biggest! - is figuring out how our two current best theories fit together. On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track - but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic. [....] So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, once defined by Lee Smolin as the new Einstein, also left the sinking ship:

http://www.space.com/29859-the-illusion-of-time.html
"Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, a theoretical physicist at the Perimeter Institute, said, "I have the distressing experience of physicists telling me that time is not real. ... It confuses me, because time seems to be real. Things happen. When I clap my hands, it happened. ... I would prefer to say that general relativity is not the final theory than to say that time does not exist." Time is a prime conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics, measured and malleable in relativity while assumed as background (and not an observable) in quantum mechanics."

http://nautil.us/issue/38/noise/this...ay-from-it-all
"This Physics Pioneer Walked Away from It All. Why Fotini Markopoulou traded quantum gravity for industrial design."

Actually all clever Einsteinians are now leaving the sinking ship, more or less secretly:

http://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i...2108_dBrrH.png

Pentcho Valev

John Norton is one of the cleverest Einsteinians - accordingly, he is one of the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"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. [...] It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane.."

So the way John Norton is running from Einstein is quite interesting - he often tells truths that ordinary Einsteinians, paralyzed by crimestop, don't even think of:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

I have already quoted this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

The following revelation is startling as well - it exposes a lie universally taught in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

Here Norton explicitly defines Einstein as a mythmaker:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...over_final.pdf
John Norton, How Einstein Did Not Discover: "Behind Einstein's Chasing a Light Beam Thought Experiment. These cartoonish impersonations of Einstein's thought experiment are possible because Einstein's account of the thought experiment is brief, cryptic, and puzzling. First, the events recounted happened in late 1895 or early 1896. Yet Einstein mentions Maxwell's equations, the key equations of nineteenth-century electrodynamics. He did not learn them until his university studies around 1898. Einstein's first report of the thought experiment in his own writings comes in 1946. The thought experiment does not appear in the 1905 special relativity paper, in any later writings prior to 1946, or in his correspondence. Second, unlike the luminous clarity of Einstein's other thought experiments, it is not at all clear how this thought experiment works. In the dominant theories of the late nineteenth century, light propagates as a wave in a medium, the luminiferous ether. It was an entirely uncontroversial result in this theory that, in a frame of reference that moved with the light, the wave would be static. There is no reason for us to be puzzled. We do not see frozen light since we are not moving at the speed of light through the ether."

Norton exposes another lie universally taught in Einstein's schizophrenic world - he explains that Maxwell's 19th century theory introduced VARIABLE (not constant, as Einsteinians teach) speed of light:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Yet one should not be misled. In Norton's mind lie and truth harmoniously coexist, and the lie is, as George Orwell put it, "always one leap ahead of the truth". In the quotation above Norton correctly explains that Maxwell's 19th century theory predicted VARIABLE speed of light, but the explanation is in a paper that would not have many readers. Norton has a very popular online course, and there things are different. The truth is still present, but the lie is one leap ahead of it: Einstein convinced himself that the speed of light is CONSTANT by considering... Maxwell's 19th century theory:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...les/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c. The speed of a light signal was quite unlike the speed of a pebble, say. The pebble could move at any speed, depending on how hard it was thrown. It was different with light in Maxwell's theory. No matter how the light signal was made and projected, its speed always came out the same. For Maxwell, that speed was always the same in just one frame of reference, the rest frame of his electromagnetic ether. The principle of relativity assured Einstein that the laws of nature were the same for all inertial observers. That light always propagated at the same speed was a law within Maxwell's theory. If it held in one inertial frame of reference, it must hold in all. So, if the principle of relativity was applied to Maxwell's law about light, the light postulate resulted immediately."

Pentcho Valev