Relativity Enables To Colonize The Milky Way…

…Relatively Easily…Warning: The following requires knowledge and acceptance of the so-called “Twin Paradox” in Relativity (which used to be controversial).

By slowing down time, Relativity makes feasible, and rapid, the conquest of the galaxy. As usual in tech, the question of the availability of huge energy is paramount. 

When a body is accelerated to speed v, its PROPER TIME slows down by a factor of square root of (1 – vv/cc). Proper time theory, also known as local time, was discovered by Lorentz and Henri Poincaré in the nineteenth century and it is the conceptual core of Relativity (named and conceptualized by Henri Poincaré, mostly misattributed to Einstein’s abtract of 1905).

As v approaches c, then, the time inside the moving spaceship tends to go to zero. As seen from Earth, whatever happens inside the spaceship comes to a standstill. 

If one could accelerate to roughly (99/100) c, c being the speed of light, the time inside the spaceship would be roughly 10% of the time on Earth.

Indeed the crucial Relativity TIME AMPLIFIER is γ= 1/ square root (1- vv/cc) = 1/square root (1/100) = 10

So say the spaceship is going to Proxima Centauri b, the Earth sized planet in the habitable zone in the closest star to the Sun . To simplify, say th spaceship does not brake but just flies by. From Earth’s perspective, light taking 4.3 years to get there, the spaceship would take less than 5 years… from Earth’s perspective, Earth time. But, inside the ship only 6 months would have elapsed… that’s “PROPER TIME” In other words, a colonization crew could get there and colonize. Now if the ship had flown ten years, it would have gone around 80 light years…

In a thousand years, one could cover 8,000 light years….:  Consider that

Now it’s likely that, within relatively soon, hibernation techniques  will be mastered.

The problem with the preceding is the huge amount of energy needed to accelerate at .99 c is gigantic, of the order of the largest thermonuclear explosion so far… for one single kilogram… Another difficulty is that empty space is not really empty, and there would be some difficulty hitting a relativistic blizzard of various particles, let alone outright objects… To accelerate a large million ton ship at .99c is feasible, acceleration-wise (.1g would do it), but the enrgy would be of the order of say 10% of the sun output for twenty minutes. How to store that? Antimatter. Antimatter battery!

Ions could be deflected by ultra strong magnetic fields… Then the starship could be made very… aerodynamic, so to speak…

In any case the fact remains: with foreseeable tech, the galaxy could be colonized quickly (on a geological time scale). So the fact we see no activity between stars means that we are alone… Because either advanced life is very rare, or space Putins are all too frequent… Or both…

The Fermi Paradox, in light of Relativity is acute

Patrice Ayme .  

Finding inhabitable planets ripe for colonization is definitively a possibility, thanks to Relativity.

P/S: Some administrator of several sites on “Space” and “Science”, not knowing Relativity at all, and confusing proper time and Earth time, accused me of “fucking nonsense” for the preceding essay. He claimed that I pretended (which I did not) that it was possible to go faster than the speed of light. Then he banned, cancelled me, and cut off communications all at the same time, unilaterally while I was sleeping. That’s how people behave nowadays. Like cretinous fascist exterminators propelled by their hating ignorance.

NEUROBIOLOGICAL TIME, Physical Light Clock Time… And How They Relate

In 1900, while Planck discovered the Quantum, Poincaré, elaborating on Lorentz’s work, established that moving clocks exhibited local time. Local time was slower the faster the clock. The localization of time will be generalized thereafter, to neurology.

Poincaré correctly saw that this extended the Principle of Relativity to fast motions. We will now introduce neurobiological time, which is also local, and goes the faster, the smaller the neurobiology under consideration.

The theory is mathematically simple, but conceptually hard… So hard it took Einstein most of his life to get it right, and even Feynman gets it wrong in his justly famous Lectures On Physics [1]. 

***   

Physical time is defined by light clocks: measuring the impact of a photon between two mirrors. This definition brings together space (the distance between the mirror), digitization and information (counting the impacts of photons), and electromagnetism (the laws of photons).

This Light-Clock time was discovered by Lorentz who called it “Ortszeit”, “Local Time”, and Poincaré.

It turns out that the other three known forces (strong, weak, gravity) have to respect that same time as defined by electromagnetism and space, or there would be violation of the conservation of energy [1].

So physics has a well defined definition of time. Yes, it’s local. Moreover, it’s observer dependent.

***

Some feel that time has to do with Entropy and the famous S = k log(P) equation. The greater the number of states, the greater the entropy, the greater the time. But this is all intuitive, informal. A further problem is that Quantum Mechanics treats time very differently than Relativity. In Relativity, time is local. In Quantum Mechanics, time is global relative to a given experimental setup… Which could be several light years across. (The SQPR theory reconciles both aspects by localizing Quantum Time.)

***

Now let me introduce another sort of local time:

NEUROBIOLOGICAL TIME:

Philosophy has no definition of time. However, obviously NEUROBIOLOGY has one. Just as in Relativity, it is observer dependent.

Physical time is the counting of photon impacts.

Neurobiological time is defined as the counting of NEURONAL AXON FIRINGS. So lots of axonal firing, much time. The idea behind the definition is that the entire renewal of the neurobiology of an insect (or portion thereof) will happen in much less time than in a much more gigantic neurobiology (or portion thereof). Paradoxically then, insects adopt new ideas faster. A wasp presented with smashing evidence, will learn instantaneously that it will lose a war with a much bigger creature trying to slap it in flight… whereas large tyrants such as Putin, Shoigu and Lavrov are proving much more slow to understand they lost their war (for the same basic reason).

One could even define the firing of each neuron once as a unit of neurological time (neurological time can also be localized in sub ensembles of the brain) .

The notion of neurobiological time explains immediately the feeling of time going really slow in case of a physical accident: because plenty of neurons are firing, in the hope of taking enough action to survive, much neurological time elapses… As many firings mean much time.

The concept of neurobiological time explains why time as experienced by insects, and other simpler neurobiologies runs much faster than ours: because all their neurons can fire at least once, in a very short span of time, as they have much fewer neurons, separated by much shorter distances (a few hundred thousands in flies versus ours one hundred billions.

This explains why fast learning can masquerade as “instinct” in insects… I have long said this, and the most recent studies show insects have indeed a rich neurobiological life: they can imitate others, feel pain, and even flies experience fear. I have long used this to my advantage when I eat meat outside and wasps rush in to partake in the delicacy: as a child I discovered that a wasp which had been hit, or nearly hit, would not come back… In other words, insects are fully sentient, just their sentience is faster than ours.

***

Neurobiological time counts the number of neurobiological electromagnetic fundamental processes… So in a distant way, it depends upon electromagnetic time, that is physical local time (see above). It also counts new (neurobiological) states, so it is somewhat similar to the hand waving arguments relating entropy and time… Except here it’s fully rigorous: neurobiological states counted by neuronal firing could be counted.

I believe that consciousness has to do with Quantum Entanglement. Neurobiological time as defined above is strictly classical… Just as the time given by a light clock is strictly classical (photons impacts). In either case, the underlying reality is quantum… But it doesn’t need to be considered to get a powerful notion of time -especially, as I said, considering Quantum Mechanics is… timeless!.

Patrice Ayme

Neurobiological Time as defined here uses Axonal firings. Just as with photons rebounding between mirrors, those firings are discrete (one after the other, with a light clock time gap in between the firings, because the neuronal machinery, which is basically chemical, needs to recharge!)

***

[1] This is a tenebrous allusion to so-called “Relativistic Mass”, something that does not exist when one understands local time correctly (as Feynman does not; Einstein himself took 40 years or so to get it right…) Poincaré himself, after getting it right in 1900, got it wrong later, until self-correcting in 1909... Poincaré died after surgery in 1912… I should write an essay on this, not relative, but massive mistake… so much to do, so little time…

Is Wave-Particle Duality Two Aspects Of Time?

There is physical time, which is a local classical notion, given by light clocks (the classical aspect of the Quantum!) This is the “Ortzeit”, local time of Lorentz and Poincare’, central to Relativity.

Then there is neurological time, which is given by brain construction, and it is not very clear what the latter consists of, except surely Quantum Physics will be involved at the quantum entanglement level. (Because quantum entanglement and nonlocality is all over basic chemistry and biology.)

So the confrontation between mind and physical time, Sein und Zeit, to sound savant like Heidegger, may actually be the old connandrum of the Quantum… the contrast between classical particle (a photon going back and forth between mirrors) and the nonlocality of entanglement… the soul, the famous wave particle duality!

Biology has lots of quantum physics in plain sight (Albany H flowers, 2023.)

RELATIVITY DOESN’T EXCLUDE FASTER THAN LIGHT COMMUNICATIONS; Einstein Illogical There

“Relativity”, first named and defined by Henri Poincaré (1904) is a local theory of LOCAL TIME. Einstein was aware of this and thus contributed later to what he called “GENERAL Relativity”, by incorporating accelerations of the gravitational type (Relativity as defined by Poincaré is all about uniform motions, as in Galilean Relativity). The main contribution of Einstein in his Relativity paper of 1905 was to derive the (already derived) equations of Relativity without referring to a state of rest (Einstein’s work is mostly a slick mathematical trick with the axiomatic system, because the state of rest is there nevertheless… as Einstein himself admitted much later).

Einstein has awed generations of physicists. Einstein had a world picture in his head, partly from his mastery of differential calculus at young age (from a helping uncle), friendly to fields and slick math. A famous conclusion from Einstein’s exposition of Relativity is that communications Faster Than Light (FTL) are impossible, because they violate CAUSALITY. Most theoretical physicists have to repeat this lest they lose their good standing. The source is Einstein. Here is Einstein’s reasoning:

The math are correct, but one of the assumptions (underlined in red by me) of the mathematical reasoning is not-previously demonstrated. Namely the addition of velocities has not been proven to be applicable when W> c!

Einstein’s logical mistake in his demonstration of the impossibility of FTL communications is that the addition of velocity formula has been demonstrated ONLY when adding speeds LESS THAN c. So Einstein should not have applied something demonstrated for W<c and ONLY FOR W<c, to W>c.

To see that relativistic speed addition applies only for speeds less than c, one has to go through the derivation of the relativistic addition of velocities step by step, as Einstein does in this Relativity-recapitulation paper of 1907, from which the impossibility of FTL com comes from, and extracted above.

***

Let’s acquire some philosophical altitude: Relativity is a type of logical cooking which applies only locally. Its main ingredient is LOCAL LIGHT CLOCK THEORY. Local light clock is, admittedly a pleonasm, as it turns out that the universe, considered to be a differential manifold U with metric given by light, is curved… So non-local light clock are impossible (at any point their size would be bounded by the exponential radius). The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the time given by a light clock doesn’t depend upon its orientation relative to its speed… Now causality is a different concept, independent of time (it is not because something happened before, or after, that it is causally related to something else).  There is a causality category CC, independent a priori from the Universe U, a differential manifold. 

The conflict between CC and U is the problem of nonlocality. Amusingly we now know that the resolution of this conflict requires some FTL mechanism, or FTL causality. Could there be no FTL mechanism, and no FTL causality? Yes, but at an even higher logical and counter-intuitive price: namely the Universe, far from being just a differential manifold equipped by light metric (which has T2, Hausdorff separability, topologically)… Would not be topologically separable…  Instead in my own SQPR, separability is maintained, time delayed causality is maintained, and Dark Matter blossoms [1]…

A lot of the hang-ups of all too many physicists about causality and Faster Than Light and Quantum Nonlocality have been caused by the erroneous feeling that it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Faster Than Light is impossible, no matter what, in all and any way.

A meta objection could be made, trying to supersede my logical refinements above: that all and any communication require momentum transfer and that momentum augments as 1/(1-vv/cc)… Right, but there again, an assumption is made which is unproven:  that all communications require momentum transfer. This is precisely what, ironically enough, the Pandora box Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) paper of 1935 showed not to be necessarily true. The EPR opened for all of humanity to be thereafter tormented, or delighted with, ever after… EPR should have made manifest that Einstein 1907 had slipped on a slick mathematical banana… But no… [2] 

Patrice Ayme

***

[1] Global time can still be maintained as a concept, but it is path dependent (and this is true in GR). In SQPR, U is embedded in a larger Euclidean space of dimension at least 2n+1 (Whitney and Nash theorems). However all this, including how many dimensions there really  are, belong to the experimental realm. 

***

[2] An example of something completely obvious which was then completely lost for ever and ever: Non-Euclidean geometry. At the same time as Euclid made his geometry all the geometry which could be had. Pytheas of Marseilles, Πυθέας ὁ Μασσαλιώτης Pythéas ho Massaliōtēs; Pytheas Massiliensis; c.350 BC-c.285 BC and then Eratosthenes, used Non-Euclidean geometry to measure the Earth and universe.

It took 21 centuries for eminent mathematicians, philosophers, physicists and thinkers to rediscover all this… Notice though that János Bolyai, Gauss, and Riemann were not professional physicists (the latter two were paid as mathematicians…).

Bolyai became so obsessed with Euclid‘s parallel postulate that his father, who pursued the same quandary for many years, wrote to him in 1820: “You must not attempt this approach to parallels. I know this way to the very end. I have traversed this bottomless night, which extinguished all light and joy in my life. I entreat you, leave the science of parallels alone…Learn from my example.”^[4]

János, however, persisted (perseverare diabolicum) and eventually concluded that the postulate is independent of the other axioms of geometry and that different consistent geometries can be constructed on negating and modifying it. In 1823, he wrote to his father: “I have discovered such wonderful things that I was amazed…out of nothing I have created a strange new universe.

Gauss, contacted, replied by glorifying himself and pretending that he had published nothing for fear of the “cries of the Boeotians“…. Gauss wrote: “To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work…coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years….” Never mind that Gauss said to some other friend: “I regard this young geometer Bolyai as a genius of the first order.“

Disgusted János Bolyai left mathematics, all too often, a most poisonous church full of autistic navel gazers with mountainous egos dissolvable FTL… 

 

Why Is Relativity Useful? Because Elementary Particles Tend To Be Relativistic

When one learns Relativity, one discovers that the physics of fast moving frames is different (slower). But then turns out that the speeds involved are enormous. How practical is this? Very. It turns out elementary particles move very fast. The speed of the electron in the fundamental atom, the hydrogen atom, can be readily evaluated, using conventional kinetic energy, equating it to potential energy from the Coulomb force and then estimating the size of the electron “orbital” from the Uncertainty Principle. One gets 2,200 kilometers per second, c/137. The speed of light divided by the “Fine Structure Constant”…

Nice little mix between Kinetic Energy a la Emilie du Chatelet plus Uncertainty principle, gives 2,200 km/s in hydrogen… Now, of course, in my own SQPR, the electron gets somewhat delocalized, so it all has to be taken with a grain of salt…

Now a “wild” electron will move much faster. How do we know that? Dirac contrived the simplest relativistic wave equation he could imagine an electron to satisfy. That Dirac equation predicted several (then) weird phenomena, soon observed. Even more strangely, that fit the work of the geometer Elie Cartan (15 years earlier). Now we sort of understand or more generally guess, that it has to do with taking the square root of space (don’t ask).

In any case, the success of the relativistic equation shows that, around another electron (say) electrons will zoom in and out close to the speed of light. It’s sort of proof by theory: build a theory predicting unexpected results, find those experimentally, then go back… to prove the “axioms” that way. Inducto-deducto-experimental-logical approach?

Inside nuclei, quarks move at relativistic speeds (that is, close to the speed of light…) CERN can actually measure those.

***

Modern Relativity theory caused an initial stir because it revealed that time was local. There was no universal time: clocks ran slow in a fast frame. 

A statement like this has plenty of hidden theory behind it, so it could cause perplexity to some… “Fast” could cause a problem: does not Relativity say that all reference frames in uniform motion relative to each other have the same physics? So many expositions of Relativity simply say there is no problem, they sweep that “problem” under the rug. 

I love intellectual combat, so I will not. 

A little bit of history for motivation here. Albert Einstein was impressed by Mach, and his Principle. That’s why he said he tried to develop General Relativity. Mach’s Conjecture is that “local physical laws are determined by the large-scale structure of the universe“. That remains a Graal, but I see the EPR, taken the way Einstein hated it, as a ray of hope.

Einstein described the Mach conjecture in 1913, in a letter to Mach: …”inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies”…

Einstein may have realized that all he was trying to do was to integrate, in the mathematical sense, the extremely local Poincare Relativity. So the theoretical effort of General Relativity was going from infinitesimally local to less local… But that said nothing global. So the quest should have looked hopeless, but that was all what anybody could think of. (In my opinion Quantum Physics and the Popper-Einstein EPR provides us with completely new conceptology… enabling us to start to hope globally)

Patrice Ayme

Is All Motion Relative? No!

Some Motions Are Relative… Most Are Not.

Fundamental ideas can be simple, yet subtle. Take the “Higgs” Field idea. Dirac’s simple first order PDE for the electron (QED, Quantum ElectroDynamic) had to be modified to incorporate the “weak” nuclear force. But that worked with massless particles. Yet, particles had mass. What to do? The solution was to make the equations even more complicated by introducing a “Higgs” field, which, once it is non-zero on average, can give the electron a mass by interacting with the electron field without messing up the workings of the “electroweak” force. Basically the interaction with the Higgs Field acts like a glue, giving an inertial mass.

Complications on top of complications… Not necessarily a bad thing: after all we got away from the magical world by introducing extremely complex explanations elaborating from a few concepts, sort of all biology from DNA and RNA… A danger, though, is to start from erroneous concepts. As Henri Poincaré put it:

C’est même des hypothèses simples qu’il faut le plus se défier, parce que ce sont celles qui ont le plus de chances de passer inaperçues. It is the simple hypotheses of which one must be most wary; because these are the ones that have the most chances of passing unnoticed. (Thermodynamique: Leçons professées pendant le premier semestre 1888–1889 (1892), Preface)

The principle of relativity, first proposed by Galileo, was stated thus by Newton:

“The motions of bodies included in a given space are

the same among themselves, whether that space is at

rest or moving uniformly forward in a straight line.”

That says nothing about how to define “uniform”, except circularly. Nor does it says all inertial frames are equivalent, just that they “are the same among themselves”…

Quantum Vacuum Fields Radiate Under Acceleration (Un. Chicago 2019 picture).

A great progress attributed to Einstein was the disappearance of any absolute motion. The irony, hidden to the profane, was that Einstein set on developing General Relativity (GR) precisely to explain the “Mach Principle” that he was obsessed with… That thing of Mach was actually discovered by Newton. Put water in a pail hanging from a rope, said Isaac. Twist the rope slowly, rotation after rotation. Release. Pail starts to rotate, water climbs on the side of the pail. Why a rotation relative to the fixed stars would have such an effect is a mystery (Mach observed, Einstein tried to elucidate with GR).  

So the idea of GR, as far as Einstein was concerned, was to find a mechanism to explain absolute motion! Indeed the standard Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) Big Bang model defines, de facto, an absolute state of motion… the one relative to which the Cosmic Background Radiation looks isotropic… Except, oops, it’s not (latest news).

***

But let’s go back to Relativity. It was named thus by Henri Poincaré, and rested on the notion of LOCAL TIME. In Fast Moving frames, time runs slow. That immediately led to the so-called “Twin Paradox” launched by Paul Langevin in 1911 (Einstein had mentioned the slowing of the moving clock in his 1905 paper). Langevin describes the story of a traveler making a trip at a Lorentz factor of γ = 100 (99.995% the speed of light). The traveler remains in a projectile for one year of his time, and then reverses direction. Upon return, the traveler will find that he has aged two years, while 200 years have passed on Earth. Langevin attributed the effect to ABSOLUTE acceleration (that’s reproduced by Richard Feynman, in his Lectures on Physics, but it’s not correct, I feel).

However, looking at the math more carefully, what really matters is how long the world-lines are, not how bent they are. The bending (acceleration) enables the length. The length referred to here is the Lorentz-invariant length or “proper time interval” of a trajectory which corresponds to the elapsed time measured by a clock following that trajectory. Basically the fast frame exchanges time for space: it covers lots of space, thus leaving little energy to spend on time: one can literally see the effect by looking at light wiggling back and forth between two mirrors. If the two mirror assembly goes fast, the wiggling is slow.

A related question is mass (like in “proper mass”). I have argued that it is time which slows down, not mass which goes up (as some texts have it, erroneously). Related to this is the Force-Acceleration law which involves now a (gamma)^3 factor… from multiple divisions by slow infinitesimal time…

All of this will leave some scratching their heads. Am I saying there is a notion of absolute motion? Well, the evidence is overwhelming. It’s time to remember the philosophy of  Henri Poincaré: if it looks like a duck in all ways, it’s a duck. Poincaré was actually saying that if all experiments give a speed of light equal to c then the speed of light c is a constant of nature (ironically, that’s true only locally… that is “infinitesimally”. In GR the speed of light is all over the space and, although locally constant, certainly not nonlocally constant… you see physics can be more subtle than basic logic…)

A notion not usually considered is that any manifold, or pseudomanifold, of dimension n can be embedded in manifold or pseudo manifold, of dimension (2n+1)… If one applies that to the curved spacetime of the LCDM, one gets an absolute reference frame… As de facto observed: the tapestry of galactic clusters is pretty much static…

***

Where am I drifting with these pseudo-idle considerations? Well, I am reinstating in catimini the honorability of space and time absolutism… Comrade Poincaré, a colossal topologist, seems to have been aware of much of this… but he died at 58 in 1912, before GR was finished (Henri had introduced gravitational waves in 1905), and long before De Broglie came up with his ubiquitous Matter Waves. Matter Waves necessitate derivation relative to time… Which local time is that? Differently from Relativity, which starts with a non-accelerated frame, the class of uniformly moving ones, Quantum Physics is indifferent: any time will do. How could that be? Accelerated time is slow time, says General Relativity (this is actually an independent, most simple piece, a building block of GR, which doesn’t require the full theory). Quantum Physics doesn’t care about time as defined by light. It differentiates as if there was one and only one time, as In Newton’s time.

Why? An obvious explanation could be that the architecture of Quantum Physics implicates a much higher speed, the collapse/entanglement/Quantum Interaction speed…  In any case, to go from our class of uniformly moving frames to any others implicates Quantum fireworks, as pictured above… No uniformities are accessible, but for the one we enjoy…

Patrice Ayme

“Proof” That Faster Than Light Communications Are Impossible Is False

There are theories everywhere, and the more ingrained they are, the more suspiciously they should be looked at. From the basic equations of relativity it is clear that if one adds speeds less than the speed of light, one will get a speed less than the speed of light. It is also clear that adding impulse to a mass will make it more massive, while its speed will asymptotically approach that of light (and, as I explained, the reason is intuitive, from Time Dilation).

The subject is not all sci-fi: modern cosmology brazenly assumes that space itself, after the alleged Big Bang, expanded at a speed at least 10^23 c (something like one hundred thousand billion billions time the speed of light c). The grossest, yet simplest, proof of that is simple: the observable universe is roughly 100 billion light years across, and it is ten billion years old. Thus it expanded at the minimum average clip of ten billion light years, every billion years. 100c/10 = 10c, according to standard cosmology. One could furiously imagine a spaceship somehow surfing on a wave of warped space, expanding for the same obscure reason same obscure reason as the Big Bang itself, that is…) 

The question naturally arises whether velocities which are greater than that of light could ever possibly be obtained in other ways. For example, are there communication speeds faster than light? (Throwing some material across will not work: its mass will increase, while its speed stays less than c.)

Textbooks say it’s not possible. There is actually a “proof” of that alleged impossibility, dating all the way back to Einstein (1907) and Tolman (1917). The mathematics are trivial (they are reproduced in my picture below). But the interpretation is apparently less so. Wikipedia weirdly claims that faster than light communications would allow to travel back in time. No. One could synchronize all clocks on all planets in the galaxies, and having faster than light communications would not change anything. Why? Time is local, faster than light data travel is nonlocal.

The problem of faster than light communications can be attacked in the following manner.

Consider two points A and B on the X axis of the system S, and suppose that some impulse originates at A, travels to B with the velocity u and at B produces some observable phenomenon, the starting of the impulse at A and the resulting phenomenon at B thus being connected by the relation of cause and effect. The time elapsing between the cause and its effect as measured in the units of system S will evidently be as follows in the calligraphy below. Then I use the usual Relativity formula (due to Lorentz) of time as it elapses in S’:

Equations help, but they are neither the beginning, nor the end of a story. Just an abstraction of it. The cult of equations is naive, interpretation is everything. The same thing, more generally, holds for models.
As Tolman put it in 1917: “Let us suppose now that there are no limits to the possible magnitude of the velocities u and V, and in particular that the causal impulse can travel from A to B with a velocity u greater than that of light. It is evident that we could then take a velocity u great enough uV/C^2 will be greater than one.
so that Delta(t) would become negative. In other words, for an observer in system S’ the effect which occurs at B would precede in time its cause which originates at A.”

I quote Tolman, because he is generally viewed as the one having definitively established the impossibility of faster than light communications. Tolman, though is not so sure; in his next sentence he turns out wishy washy: “Such a condition of affairs might not be a logical impossibility; nevertheless its extraordinary nature might incline us to believe that no causal impulse can travel with a velocity greater than that of light.”

Actually it is an effect those who have seen movies running in reverse are familiar with. Causality apparently running in reverse is no more surprising than the fact that two events at x1 and x2 which are simultaneous in S are separated by:  (x1-x2) (V/square root (1-VV/CC)). That introduces a sort of fake, or apparent causality, sometimes this before that, sometimes that before this.

(The computation is straightforward and found in Tolman’s own textbook; it originated with Henri Poincaré.^[9][10] In 1898 Poincaré argued that the postulate of light speed constancy in all directions is useful to formulate physical laws in a simple way. He also showed that the definition of simultaneity of events at different places is only a convention.^[11]) . Notice that, in the case of simultaneity, the signs of V and (x1-x2) matter. Basically, depending upon how V moves, light in S going to S’ takes more time to catch up with the moving frame, and the more so, the further it is, the same exact effect which explains the nil result in the Michelson-Morley interferometer; there is an underlying logic below all of this, and it’s always the same).

Tolman’s argumentation about the impossibility of faster than light communications is, in the end, purely philosophical and fully inconsistent with the closely related, and fully mainstream, relativity of simultaneousness.

Poincaré in 1900 proposed the following convention for defining clock synchronisation: 2 observers A and B, which are moving in space (which Poincaré called the aether), synchronise their clocks by means of optical signals. They believe to be at rest in space (“the aether”) from not moving relative to distant galaxies or the Cosmic Radiation Background and assume that the speed of light is constant in all directions. Therefore, they have to consider only the transmission time of the signals and then crossing their observations to examine whether their clocks are synchronous.

“Let us suppose that there are some observers placed at various points, and they synchronize their clocks using light signals. They attempt to adjust the measured transmission time of the signals, but they are not aware of their common motion, and consequently believe that the signals travel equally fast in both directions. They perform observations of crossing signals, one traveling from A to B, followed by another traveling from B to A.” 

In 1904 Poincaré illustrated the same procedure in the following way:

“Imagine two observers who wish to adjust their timepieces by optical signals; they exchange signals, but as they know that the transmission of light is not instantaneous, they are careful to cross them. When station B perceives the signal from station A, its clock should not mark the same hour as that of station A at the moment of sending the signal, but this hour augmented by a constant representing the duration of the transmission. Suppose, for example, that station A sends its signal when its clock marks the hour 0, and that station B perceives it when its clock marks the hour t. The clocks are adjusted if the slowness equal to t represents the duration of the transmission, and to verify it, station B sends in its turn a signal when its clock marks 0; then station A should perceive it when its clock marks t. The timepieces are then adjusted. And in fact they mark the same hour at the same physical instant, but on the one condition, that the two stations are fixed. Otherwise the duration of the transmission will not be the same in the two senses, since the station A, for example, moves forward to meet the optical perturbation emanating from B, whereas the station B flees before the perturbation emanating from A. The watches adjusted in that way will not mark, therefore, the true time; they will mark what may be called the local time, so that one of them will be slow of the other.^[13]“

This Poincaré (“–Einstein”) synchronisation was used by telegraphers as soon as the mid-nineteenth century. It would allow to cover the galaxy with synchronized clocks (although local times will differ a bit depending upon the motion of stars, and in particular where in the galactic rotation curve a star sits). Transmitting instantaneous signals in that networks would not affect causality. Ludicrously, Wikipedia asserts that faster than light signals would make “Bertha” rich (!!!). That comes simply from Wikipedia getting thoroughly confused, allowing faster than light signals for some data, and not for other data, thus giving an advantage to some, and not others.

***

Quantum Entanglement (QE) enables at-a-distance changes of Quantum states:

(It comes in at least three types of increasing strength.) Quantum Entanglement, as known today, is within Quantum state to within Quantum state, but we cannot control in which Quantum state the particle will be, to start with, so we cannot use QE for communicating faster than light (because we don’t control what we write, so to speak, as we write with states, so we send gibberish).

This argument is formalized in a “No Faster Than Light Communication theorem”. However, IMHO, the proof contains massive loopholes (the proof assumes that there is no Sub Quantum Reality, whatsoever, nor could there ever be some, ever, and thus that the unlikely QM axioms are forever absolutely true beyond all possible redshifts you could possibly imagine, inter alia). So this is not the final story here. QE enables, surprisingly, the Quantum Radar (something I didn’t see coming). And it is not clear to me that we have absolutely no control on states statistically, thus that we can’t use what Schrödinger, building on the EPR thought experiment, called “Quantum Steering” to communicate at a distance. Quantum Radar and Quantum Steering are now enacted through real devices. They use faster-than-light in their inner machinery.

As the preceding showed, the supposed contradiction of faster-than-light communications with Relativity is just an urban legend. It makes the tribe of physicists more priestly, as they evoke a taboo nobody can understand, for the good reason that it makes no sense, and it is intellectually comfortable, as it simplifies brainwork, taboos always do, but it is a lie. And it is high time this civilization switches to the no more lies theorem, lest it wants to finish roasted, poisoned, flooded, weaponized and demonized.

Patrice Ayme’

Technical addendum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

As Wikipedia itself puts it, weasel-style, to try to insinuate that Einstein brought something very significant to the debate, the eradication of the aether (but the aether came back soon after, and there are now several “reasons” for it; the point being that, as Poincaré suspected, there is a notion of absolute rest, and now we know this for several reasons: CRB, Unruh effect, etc.):

“In 1892 and 1895, Hendrik Lorentz used a mathematical method called “local time” t’ = t – v x/c2 for explaining the negative aether drift experiments.[5] However, Lorentz gave no physical explanation of this effect. This was done by Henri Poincaré who already emphasized in 1898 the conventional nature of simultaneity and who argued that it is convenient to postulate the constancy of the speed of light in all directions. However, this paper does not contain any discussion of Lorentz’s theory or the possible difference in defining simultaneity for observers in different states of motion.[6][7] This was done in 1900, when Poincaré derived local time by assuming that the speed of light is invariant within the aether. Due to the “principle of relative motion”, moving observers within the aether also assume that they are at rest and that the speed of light is constant in all directions (only to first order in v/c). Therefore, if they synchronize their clocks by using light signals, they will only consider the transit time for the signals, but not their motion in respect to the aether. So the moving clocks are not synchronous and do not indicate the “true” time. Poincaré calculated that this synchronization error corresponds to Lorentz’s local time.[8][9] In 1904, Poincaré emphasized the connection between the principle of relativity, “local time”, and light speed invariance; however, the reasoning in that paper was presented in a qualitative and conjectural manner.[10][11]

Albert Einstein used a similar method in 1905 to derive the time transformation for all orders in v/c, i.e., the complete Lorentz transformation. Poincaré obtained the full transformation earlier in 1905 but in the papers of that year he did not mention his synchronization procedure. This derivation was completely based on light speed invariance and the relativity principle, so Einstein noted that for the electrodynamics of moving bodies the aether is superfluous. Thus, the separation into “true” and “local” times of Lorentz and Poincaré vanishes – all times are equally valid and therefore the relativity of length and time is a natural consequence.[12][13][14]“

… Except of course, absolute relativity of length and time is not really true: everywhere in the universe, locally at rest frames can be defined, in several manner (optical, mechanical, gravitational, and even using a variant of the Quantum Field Theory Casimir Effect). All other frames are in trouble, so absolute motion can be detected. The hope of Einstein, in devising General Relativity was to explain inertia, but he ended down with just a modification of the 1800 CE Bullialdus-Newton-Laplace theory… (Newton knew his instantaneous gravitation made no sense, and condemned it severely, so Laplace introduced a gravitation speed, thus the gravitational waves, and Poincaré made them relativistic in 1905… Einstein got the applause…)

LEARN TO LEARN: Henri Poincaré, Not Einstein, Discovered Gravitational Waves, 111 years Ago

Physics Nobel Committee Should Learn Physics! And the notion of truth!

The truth shall not just make us free, but also safe, and moral. Teaching thinking is to teach truth and how to get to it. One should start by not deliberately lying. And understanding when it is that humanity started to understand something.

Intellectuals should revere the truth. If Satan speaks the truth, intellectuals should quote him approvingly.Why? Because ethics is truth! The Nobel in Physics was given to screwdriver turners for “decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”

However the rest of the press release from the Nobel committee on physics is a lie: it attributes the original idea of gravitational waves to a German. Surely the physicists who sit on the Nobel Committee are knowledgeable enough to know this is a lie. That sort of lies may sounds innocuous, it’s not: it’s anti-scientific, and proto-Nazi. It teaches the youth wrong. It teaches present day Nazis wrong.

The generation of waves by a central source field is easy to understand in primary school.

It’s because of these sorts of nationalistic distortions that Germans, a century ago, got so full of hubris that they went mad: everybody told them they invented everything! Everybody told Germans they were the superior race! And Max Planck was one of the prophets of this German superiority. ! And the hated French, were nothing, because that “inferior race” had invented nothing! Thus, naturally enough, since they were told from everywhere that they were so smart, the Germans decided to subjugate the rest of humanity, be it only to enlighten it (that was the idea of Keynes in “The Economic Consequence of Peace”).

Actually, it’s not a German who discovered, and named, “Relativity”, but a Frenchman.    

In press releases announcing the detection of gravitational waves, the collaborations LIGO and VIRGO, as well as the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, France), explicitly (and WRONGLY) attributed to the German Albert Einstein the original prediction of the existence of gravitational waves in 1916. A similar comment is made in the Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO.

But actually, gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light, were clearly predicted by Henri Poincaré on June 5, 1905, as a relativistic requirement. Poincaré made this requirement explicit in his academic note Sur la dynamique de l’électron (On electron dynamics, June 5, 1905) published by the French Académie des Sciences.

At the time, Poincaré was already world famous, and Einstein, nothing. Planck, a German nationalist, would make Einstein everything by allowing Einstein to publish articles without any reference on preceding he knew about, and parroted. This was sheer propaganda.

After explicitly formulating special relativity in this fundamental article, Poincaré further develops the requirement suggested by Hendrik Antoon Lorentz that the new space-time transformation leading to special relativity should apply to all existing forces and not just to the electromagnetic interaction. (At the insistence of Poincaré, Lorentz got the Nobel for Relativity in 1902)

Henri Poincaré concludes that, as a consequence of the new space-time geometry, gravitation must generate waves traveling at the speed of light in a similar way to electromagnetism.

Following the pre-Nazi German nationalistic propaganda contained in the press releases of scientific collaborations and institutions, almost all medias attribute to Albert Einstein the original prediction of gravitational waves.

The Physical Review Letters article by LIGO and VIRGO Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,  PRL 116, 061102 (11 February 2016), explicitly sates https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 : “In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves”. What, then, about the work done by Henri Poincaré 11 years before the Einstein finding ?

Actually, the situation seems quite clear. In his short article of 5 June 1905 Sur la dynamique de l’électron, C.R. T.140 (1905) 1504-1508 (Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, France), http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Poincare/Poincare_pdf/Poincare_CR1905.pdf , the French mathematician and physicist Henri Poincaré explicitly formulated special relativity upgrading the space-time transformations that he called “Lorentz transformations” and to which he referred as the “Lorentz group”. After having worked out and discussed the new space-time geometry, Poincaré writes:

… Mais ce n’est pas tout: Lorentz, dans l’Ouvrage cité, a jugé nécessaire de compléter son hypothèse en supposant que toutes les forces, quelle qu’en soit l’origine, soient affectées, par une translation [a change of inertial frame in Poincaré’s language], de la même manière que les forces électromagnétiques, et que, par conséquent, l’effet produit sur leurs composantes par la transformation de Lorentz est encore défini par les équations (4).

Il importait d’examiner cette hypothèse de plus près et en particulier de rechercher quelles modifications elle nous obligerait à apporter aux lois de la gravitation [HOW TO MODIFY GRAVITATION]. C’est ce que j’ai cherché à déterminer; j’ai été d’abord conduit à supposer que la propagation de la gravitation n’est pas instantanée, mais se fait avec la vitesse de la lumière. (…)

Quand nous parlerons donc de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attirant, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où l’onde gravifique [GRAVITATIONAL WAVE] est partie de ce corps; quand nous parlerons de la position ou de la vitesse du corps attiré, il s’agira de cette position ou de cette vitesse à l’instant où ce corps attiré a été atteint par l’onde gravifique émanée de l’autre corps; il est clair que le premier instant est antérieur au second… [End of quote]

Gravitational waves were thus explicitly predicted by Henri Poincaré in his 5 june 1905 article formulating special relativity. All of these ideas got incorporated in the gravitational wave equation of Einstein (who worked closely, day by day, with a number of top mathematicians at the time, including crack mathematician David Hilbert, who found a different approach).

In special relativity, such as already defined explicitly, with all its equations, by Poincaré and Lorentz, the speed of light c is not just the speed of a specific object (light) but a universal constant defining (local) space-time geometry. As a consequence, no physical object, signal, or correlation can travel faster than c. Poincaré explained in extreme details the philosophy behind it (if something is always true, it’s a law of nature), in a book which Einstein and his student friends studied in thorough detail (although Einstein didn’t quote Poincaré in his famous 1905 parrot work, naturally enough for a nationalistic parrot (later Einstein would have a fall-out with another French Nobel, Bergson, about Relativity).

According to Poincaré in his article of 5 June 1905, the requirement of a universal space-time geometry with the speed of light c as the critical speed implies that the gravitational force must be propagated by gravitational waves with a speed equal to c , just as electromagnetic waves carry the electromagnetic interaction.

As Henri Poincaré explicitly underlines, the space-time geometry defined by Lorentz tranformations applies to all existing forces including the gravitational ones. Thus, gravitation cannot propagate instantaneously and must instead propagate at the speed of light. The same argument clearly applies to any object associated to gravitation.

Considering as a simple example the gravitational interaction between two bodies, Poincaré introduces a “gravific wave” leaving the first body, traveling at the speed of light and reaching the second body at a later time. This was the original formulation of the prediction of gravitational waves in a context where its general scope was obvious. Poincaré had been working for years on electromagnetism, and knew perfectly well that more sophisticated scenarios than the example he was providing could be imagined without altering the role of c as the critical speed.

A decade later, with general relativity, Albert Einstein considered in detail more involved scenarios than the one made explicit by Poincaré, incorporating in particular an effective space-time curvature generated by gravitation in a static universe. But this does not invalidate the basic principle discovered and formulated by Henri Poincaré in 1905.

In his article, Poincaré also refers to the previous work by Pierre-Simon de Laplace, Count of Laplace (1749-1827), one of the main French scientists of the period of Napoléon Bonaparte. Laplace had already considered the possibility that gravitation propagates at some finite speed, but he did not question the basic space-time geometry.

Poincaré had demonstrated and published E = m c^2… in 1900, more than 5 years before Einstein plagiarized it.

I have talked about this for years. I am happy that Science 2.0 picked up the notion in “Henri Poincaré Predicted The Existence Of Gravitational Waves As Early As June 5, 1905”

Correct attribution of civilization defining discoveries is fundamental. Example: India discovered numbers & zero as used today.

The chronological hierarchy of discoveries reflects, in general, the logical hierarchy of evidence supporting these discoveries. Whether in science, or in global thinking. Thus who discovered what, when, how and why, is not just anecdotal. it’s logical, according to the most natural logic.

As it turns out, few places in spacetime made most civilization defining discoveries, and then they made plenty of them, and that was related to political processes: a few Greek city-states, especially Ionian cities and Athens and Paris and its satellites are obvious examples.

One can learn to learn better, one can learn to think better, this is what the existence of concentrations of civilizational genesis, show.

It’s crucially important to understand what made these places tick and how, with the aim of reproducing such circumstances. Paris was the pioneering place in science, worldwide, for around a millennium, and this was the core mental skeleton of Europe, and even civilization. Buridan discovered in particular the inertia, thus the heliocentric system (attributed to Copernicus, well after the Catholic Church made studying Buridan into a capital crime!), Lamarck, evolution (taught in Paris while forbidden in England, etc… The same crowd probably wants us to believe in Donald Trump and Neo Liberalism, as no good idea could possibly come from anywhere else not Germanoido-Anglo-Saxon. The Nobel Committee is dominated by US physicists anxious to demonstrate US superiority and, in particular, the superiority of US universities, because there is beaucoup money in it, and it could please their sponsors (the tax-free plutocrats).

It’s also important to make correct attributions, because the original authors are always clearer about their reasonings, and how they got there. Plagiarists tend to be more obscure, because they hide their tracks.

Re-attributing the correct discoveries can be shattering, and teaches us how obscurantism proceeds to eradicate knowledge. The disappearance, for two millennia, of non-Euclidean geometry, is a case in point. So is that of atomism, and “Brownian” motion. The suppression of Buridan and the heliocentric system, by the Christian church is a particularly sinister instance: it was vicious, deliberate, and motivated by the hatred for thinking..

So let’s celebrate the discovery of gravitational waves. My little drawing above shows that one does not need even relativity to make waves. A big motion of the source will do, as anybody watching a tsunami on TV knows.

The gravitational wave detectors inaugurate a new sort of measuring instrument. However, the idea is at least as old as the Michelson and Morley interferometer of the Nineteenth Century. There is nothing new to it. (That’s why I called the laureates “screwdriver turners.)

And what of Planck, Einstein’s unhinged sponsor? Planck signed a disgusting message in World War One denying Germany had committed war crimes (he later denounced it, when the war was over). The French made one of Planck’s sons prisoner in World War One, and the other son was caged and executed by Hitler. That Hitler interlocutor, Max Planck, got, unfortunately, not just for him, but all humanity, his just deserts. But let’s not keep on having them now. Want Relativity? Think Henri Poincaré, forget about his parrots!

Planck enabled Einstein to post in the Annalen der Physik, the oldest journal in physics (1799), WITHOUT any reference, on the three most famous subjects in physics at the time. It was vicious and deliberate, to serve the satanic god of hyper-nationalism of the racist type. Playing with hyper-nationalism, Planck ended up losing, and Einstein, and the German Jews, became double losers (they lost as Germans and as Jews). So here is a case of the losers writing history… German hyper nationalism was encouraged by Einstein and Planck, with a false flag attribution, and they, and their kind, lost twice.

Truth is not seen just with the eyes. Truth is seen through the mind of a thorough debate.

Patrice Ayme’

 

What Is “Moral” To A Lion?

What Is Moral To A Chimpanzee?

What is the Origin of Human Morality?

Individual Morality May Vary, But Social Morality, Which Also Varies, Is Absolutely Dependent Upon Circumstances:

Natural scientists will say that one has to start with human ethology, the behavior of man au naturel. However, that’s a bit delicate, as there is nothing natural about man, since the genus Homo wages war and uses weapons and tools, to the point man cannot do without.

Nevertheless, morality has stabilized in the last 25 centuries in most ways (especially now that women are treated with natural equality).

The mos maiorum (“way of the elders”; plural of mos, behavior, is “mores”).  The unwritten code of the Republican Romans, comprising: Fides, Disciplina, Pietas, Gravitas, Religio, Cultus, Dignitas, Auctoritas, Virtus…  

This is where the concept of “Moral” comes from.

These behaviors, as a set, enabled the Roman Republic to survive for 5 centuries (or more, if one considers the empire and the subsequent “Christian Republic” as an extension of the Republic, as the Roman did; de facto, we are still under basic Roman secular law, 25 centuries later).

This gives a philosophical hint. Philosophy is the art of guessing what could be, may be, could well be, ought to be, etc. For morality, it is beyond a guess:    

“Mores”, “Morality” has to do with survival. Morality is the set of behaviors which insures survival. 

Temple of Baalshiman, Palmyra. Insulted by the Bible in Connection with Human Sacrifices. Its Destruction by Islamists in 2015 (right).

There is a continuum between natural and (epi-)genetic ethology, and cultural ethology: the study of chimpanzees shows this. The very Christian Jane Goodall found, to her dismay, that the chimpanzees she studied made, over many years, a systematic war of extermination against another group of chimps.

The origin of morality is survival. The set of all moral behaviors (“mores”) is the set which enables survival. Survival of the individual, the group, a society, even a civilization.

Carthage was, in its times, 25 centuries ago, one of the most advanced societies. Its sailors captured gorillas, and circumnavigated Africa. Trading with Black Africa for fish was intense. Carthaginian agriculture in semidesertic conditions was so advanced, Roman preserved the book (while destroying all others). However, Carthage practiced childhood sacrifices extensively and routinely (archeologists seem to have demonstrated, confirming the stories already found in the Bible, Leviticus).

Another example: Polynesian societies needed to corral strongly behaviors and human population on their delicate islands. Hence taboos (don’t fish there, don’t go into that valley, etc.) and cannibalism (often entangled with religion, as Captain Cook experienced).

The Aztecs, deprived of massive proteins aside from a giant salamander (differently from other civilizations around Mexico, which had access to large quantities of fish). The Aztecs made a religion centered on human butchery, up to thousands eaten in a few days… (This made the Aztecs unpopular in Mesoamerica, and enabled Cortez to rise an army of 80,000 natives to fight the Aztecs, enormously amplifying his very small army of few thousands Spaniards).

Astrophysics professor, and proud principal investigator Coel Hellier states:  “If “it is morally good” doesn’t mean “I approve of it” then what does it mean? When Stephen Law says that science cannot tell us “what one ought or ought not to do”, what does the phrase “ought to do”, as used there, actually mean? These are fun questions to ask a moral realist. We ought to do it because it is morally good … and it is morally good because we ought to do it, and … but so far I’ve never come across an actual answer.”

A society determines what it ought to do to survive, and derives a morality from it, that all individuals “ought” to obey (“mores”, social morality). However, to survive, or lessen pain, a given crazed, or, simply, distressed, individual may well decide that she/he needs to violate the social morality, and follow her/his own ways of doing things.

Hence morality is relative between societies, and between individuals and society. However, given a long-established society, morality is absolute.

Roman Republican morality cracked around 150 BCE, due to Roman globalocracy (which enabled Roman plutocrats to come into existence, and ever grow in power). The collapse of that morality proximally brought the non-enforcement of anti-plutocratic laws (although the assassinated Gracchi tried to reinforce them). Soon plutocrats were at each others’ throats, as they dominated the Roman world (contemplate the situation today!). Massive and continuous civil wars ensued, followed by Augustus’ Principate in 27 BCE, as that wily youngster was able to muster the declining strength of the moribund Republica to his command.

However, the basic Roman Republican morality was embodied by Republican Roman law, whose basic framework survived even the Christo-fascism of the Fourth Century. Roman secular law was refurbished under Roman emperor Justinian (529 CE to 565 CE), and separated from Christian Sharia. Roman secular law was transmitted by the Imperium Francorum: it fit well with the Salic Law of the Franks. Roman secular law survives to this day as the basic legal framework of the present civilization. (This partly explains why the present civilization is not Christian: it does not fllow Christian law, but Ethological Law, also known as Roman Law.)

That morality is time-tested. It’s also the morality closest to natural ethology. So it’s not relative. It’s pretty much absolute. Hence a very good foundation on which to wage war in its defense.

Patrice Ayme’

Relativity, Absolute Frame, Simultaneity, Action At A Distance

Quantum Physics comes with an instantaneous action at a distance. A simultaneity. I call it the QI, the Quantum Interaction.

This simultaneity, this action at a distance, has baffled Relativity enthusiasts. See “Taming The Quantum Spooks”. 

https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance

According to Einsteinian lore, one cannot have such an “instantaneous” interaction, it would contradict “Relativity”. (From my point the interaction is not instantaneous, just more than 10^10 c, that is 10^10 the speed of light, at least.)

Jules Henri Poincaré asserted the Principle of Relativity (1904) and demonstrated that, supposing that the speed of light was always constant, one could get all the equations of Special Relativity. Then Einstein, opportunistically jumping on the immensely famous Poincaré’s work, asserted that the Frenchman’s work showed that the speed of light was constant (whereas a more cautious  Poincaré asserted earlier that, considering that the speed of light was always found experimentally to be constant, one should view that as a law of physics). Of course, Einstein did not quote the French, as he was a good Swabian (and not a good European), keen to ride, as his mentor Planck was, Prussian fascism.

This Field Of Galaxies Defines An Absolute Frame. It Is Plain To See, Only Years Of Learning Academic Physics Can Brainwash Someone, Not To See It.

Poincaré knew very well Lorentz’s Local Time theory, which he had helped established, in the preceding quarter of a century. However, Jules Henri still believed in Absolute Time (Einstein did not).

Why to believe in Absolute Time? Poincaré did not wax lyrical on the subject. He actually said nothing (contrarily to Nobel laureate Bergson twenty years later, who violently contradicted Einstein). Nor did any physicist, in the meantime (110 years), dare defend Absolute Time (we have lived in an Einstein terror regime!) But this what Quantum Physics quietly does and what I will now dare to do (if I can contradict professional Salafists, I surely can dare to contradict professional physicists).

Suppose we have an absolute reference frame. Bring a light clock there, at rest, call that time: Absolute time. One can slow transport clocks (say using chemical rockets, and taking 100,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri) all over the universe, establishing UNIVERSAL TIME. Relativistic effects depend upon vv/cc. The square of speed, divided by the square of the speed of light c. If v/c is small, vv/cc is even much smaller, and negligible. (Poincaré showed this first.)

So is there an absolute reference frame? Sure. That frame is the one steady relative to distance pulsars, quasars, distant galaxies, etc. (no rotation) and steady relative to the Cosmological Background Radiation. Then one can talk about simultaneity, absolute time, and thus instantaneous interaction at a distance.

(This is one approach; there is another approach of mine, more mathematical, using the fact a manifold of dimension n can be embedded in one of dimension 2n +1 (Whitney). Or then one can use the celebrated Nash’ embedding theorem.)

There is no contradiction of Absolute Time theory, or should we say, possibility, with Local Time Theory (LTT). LTT is about light clocks. Relativity is about light clocks. Yet we know of other interactions… plus the QUANTUM INTERACTION.

BTW, in “General Relativity”, “Einstein’s theory of gravitation”, the speed of light is not constant. Even Einstein recognized this.

Conclusion? One can profitably consider Ian Miller’s “Dark Energy and Modern Science“. Even physicists can believe what they believe in, on the most important fundamentals, because it is fashionable, a rite one has to believe in, so that one can become an initiated member of the tribe. And the more absurd the belief, the better.

Patrice Ayme’