# Doublethink in Theoretical Physics

#### Pentcho Valev

"Einstein first discovered the gravitational time dilation in 1911, on the basis of his equivalence principle. From the time dilation, he immediately deduced the slow-down and deflection of light in a gravitational field. His 1911 result for the reduction of the speed of light was in error by a factor of 2, but he corrected this a few years later, in his theory of General Relativity." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1102/1102.2870.pdf

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

So, according to general relativity, the speed of light DECREASES as light falls in a gravitational field. All Einsteinians know that the opposite is true - the speed of light INCREASES as light falls in a gravitational field:

James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "If we accept the equivalence principle, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, Modern Physics: "But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

How can one know the truth, even teach it, and at the same time sincerely believe the lie? George Orwell explains:

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…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…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…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."

#### Pentcho Valev

Statement 1. Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed"
View: https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

Statement 2. "Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength...but a different frequency...to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

Which statement is true? Statement 2 of course. The wavelength remains constant while the frequency and the speed of light vary proportionally for the moving observer, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Professors normally teach Statement 2 (constant wavelength) - otherwise it would be impossible to reasonably derive the Doppler frequency shift at the moving observer. Their only concern is not to discuss the variation of the speed of light explicitly. If this variation remains implicit in the lecture, there is no danger. The brainwashed public will never realize that Einstein's relativity is disproved.

#### Pentcho Valev

Philip Ball, the all-powerful godfather of modern science (not just physics), tells the truth here:

Philip Ball: "Did Einstein discover E=mc2?...The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-discover-emc2.html

It may seem that telling the truth is contraindicated in the brainwashing process, but actually the opposite is true. Nothing is more destructive for human rationality than alternating lie with truth, "with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth".

Other brainwashers telling the truth:

Brian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose non-electromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m=E/c². Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briank...he-history-of-einsteins-most-famous-equation/

Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E=mc² between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
914
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K