THE END OF POSTSCIENTISM

In the era of Postscientism crimestop is ubiquitous:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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."

So the end of Postscientism (in the distant future) will be signaled
by crimestop violations. For instance, a title like:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200
The end of Space-time: Rethinking Einstein

will be followed by an anti-crimestop text:

"Space-time is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate. Rejecting it implies that the postulate is false."

Pentcho Valev

In the era of Postscientism a clever expert in logic sincerely
believes that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true although its
consequence, "The passage of time is an illusion", is false:

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

Orwell would say that John Norton, in sincerely believing that
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is both false (because the consequence
is false) and true (because Divine Albert has said it is true)
exercises himself in doublethink:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) 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."

Note that "the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ;
the more intelligent, the less sane". So John Norton shows no signs of
internal conflict but that is not the case with less intelligent
Einsteinians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In the era of Postscientism crimestop is ubiquitous:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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."

So the end of Postscientism (in the distant future) will be signaled
by crimestop violations. For instance, a title like:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200
The end of Space-time: Rethinking Einstein

will be followed by an anti-crimestop text:

"Space-time is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate. Rejecting it implies that the postulate is false."

Pentcho Valev

An observer moves along a row of stakes 1m apart. It is obvious that
both the frequency and the speed of the stakes relative to the
observer vary with his speed while the distance between the stakes
(1m) remains constant.

Essentially this example provides the only reasonable analogy allowing
one to imagine the effects of an observer's sudden rush towards a wave
source: both the frequency and the speed of the wavecrests relative to
the observer increase while the wavelength, the distance between
wavecrests, remains constant.

In the era of Postscientism the analogy generates both crimestop and
doublethink. It works without problems for water and sound waves but
whenever Einsteinians apply it to light waves they stop short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of a dangerous truth that could
put an end to the postscientific serenity:

"The speed of light varies with the speed of the observer"

Clever Einsteinians sincerely believe in the truth - varying speed of
light and constant wavelength - the analogy with stakes, water and
sound waves shows no plausible alternative. Yet clever Einsteinians
teach the lie ("always one leap ahead of the truth") - varying
wavelength and constant speed of light - and sincerely believe in it
too:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

In the era of Postscientism crimestop is ubiquitous:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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."

So the end of Postscientism (in the distant future) will be signaled
by crimestop violations. For instance, a title like:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200
The end of Space-time: Rethinking Einstein

will be followed by an anti-crimestop text:

"Space-time is a direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate. Rejecting it implies that the postulate is false."

In the era of Postscientism a clever expert in logic sincerely
believes that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is true although its
consequence, "The passage of time is an illusion", is false:

http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf
John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory
since its passage has not been captured within modern physical
theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact
that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that
the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a
real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us.
How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is
that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion,
an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the
world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a
lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of
Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully
powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most
perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-
dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other
processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd
sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns
out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are
differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow
captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage
of time."

Orwell would say that John Norton, in sincerely believing that
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is both false (because the consequence
is false) and true (because Divine Albert has said it is true)
exercises himself in doublethink:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) 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."

Note that "the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ;
the more intelligent, the less sane". So John Norton shows no signs of
internal conflict but that is not the case with less intelligent
Einsteinians:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

Pentcho Valev

More doblethink in the era of Postscientism: Clever Einsteinians
sincerely believe both that gravitational time dilation is not real
(the truth) and that gravitational time dilation is real (the lie,
"always one leap ahead of the truth"):

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Note that, although Banesh Hoffmann reveals part of the truth (the
ceiling clock and the floor clock "ARE GOING AT THE SAME RATE"), the
necessary camouflage is still provided by a blatant lie ("In an
accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding
earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower
than the ticking rate of the upper clocks...").

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) 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."

Pentcho Valev

A typical campaign in the era of Postscientism:

1. For years theoreticians challenge Divine Albert's Divine Theory and
make career and money by developing "quantum gravity" where the speed
of light is energy-dependent:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Se...lden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

http://roychristopher.com/joao-mague...tier-cosmology
"Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to
turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Marueijo is trying to pick
apart one of Einstein's most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the
speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/
second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern
physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has,
or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesnt buy it. His VSL
(Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be
energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that he's out of
his mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from
Cambridge, has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and
is currently a professor at Imperial College, London. He's a
MAINSTREAM SCIENTIST WHOSE MIND IS BEGINNING TO WANDER."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
"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.''

2. For years experimentalists make career and money by confirming the
energy dependence of the speed of light:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...c-results.html
"In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
absolutely irrelevant."

3. Epilogue. Einsteiniana puts an end to the heresy. Einsteiniana's
priests quit quantum gravity. Experimentalists show that, although the
speed of light is still energy-dependent, the magnitude of the
dependence does not fit quantum gravity's predictions and therefore
Divine Albert's Divine Theory is alive and kicking. Believers fiercely
sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" and go into convulsions:

http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "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. (...) I
realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in
these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions
to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the
right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight
less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80...instein-right/
"New results are in from the Fermi Space Telescope, which settled into
orbit in the summer of 2008, and the findings seem to prove Albert
Einstein right once again. Man, that guy was good. (...) But the study
of the Fermi Telescopes results, published in Nature, declares that
since all the gamma rays arrived within nine-tenths of a second apart,
they must have all traveled at almost exactly the same speed. (...)
Physicists working with the Fermi Telescope will keep looking for new
evidence. But for now, says study coauthor Peter F. Michelson, "I take
it as a confirmation that Einstein is still right" [The New York
Times]."

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

More doublethink in the era of Postscientism. Both John Norton and Tom
Roberts belong to "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink" in
Einsteiniana. Note how nicely Tom Roberts' words illustrate "the lie
always one leap ahead of the truth":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2

John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."

Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) 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."

Pentcho Valev

If you don't believe that SR is correct, how do explain what happens in
particle accelerators when particles are accelerated close to the speed of
light?

They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do follow SR
dynamics, how do you explain that?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
| If you don't believe that SR is correct, how do explain what happens in
| particle accelerators when particles are accelerated close to the speed of
| light?
|
| They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do follow SR
| dynamics, how do you explain that?
|

If you don't believe that Santa Claus is correct, how do explain what
happens
under Xmas trees when prezzies appear as if by magic on Xmas day?
They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do follow
Santa Claus dynamics, how do you explain that?

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
| If you don't believe that SR is correct, how do explain what happens in
| particle accelerators when particles are accelerated close to the speed
of
| light?
|
| They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do follow
SR
| dynamics, how do you explain that?
|

If you don't believe that Santa Claus is correct, how do explain what
happens
under Xmas trees when prezzies appear as if by magic on Xmas day?
They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do follow
Santa Claus dynamics, how do you explain that?


Santa Claus isn't real.

Particle accelerators are.

Of course, you are the guy who has never disputed a single experimental
prediction of SR, so I guess you don't need any more convincing that
Relativity correctly predicts what happens inside particle accelerators!

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...
|
| "Androcles" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "Peter Webb" wrote in message
| ...
| | If you don't believe that SR is correct, how do explain what happens
in
| | particle accelerators when particles are accelerated close to the
speed
| of
| | light?
| |
| | They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do
follow
| SR
| | dynamics, how do you explain that?
| |
|
| If you don't believe that Santa Claus is correct, how do explain what
| happens
| under Xmas trees when prezzies appear as if by magic on Xmas day?
| They obviously don't follow Newtonian dynamics, and obviously do follow
| Santa Claus dynamics, how do you explain that?
|
|
| Santa Claus isn't real.
|
| Particle accelerators are.

SR isn't real.
Xmas trees and prezzies are.

Your illogic is pathetic, Webb.