One sincerely believes that, IF EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE IS FALSE, "NOTHING WILL REMAIN OF CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS":

www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/9755...7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
Albert Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf
New varying speed of light theories
Joao Magueijo
"In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories."

A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The farce of physics
Bryan Wallace
"Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v."

A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION:
www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memo...f/Einstein_eloge.pdf
Louis de Broglie: "Tout d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait expulsée de la théorie de la Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une "théorie du champ" où le rayonnement était représenté par une répartition continue dans l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment au cours du temps sans qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les domaines spatiaux au sein desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très petites régions singulières où le champ serait très fortement concentré et qui fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce caractère à la fois continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait prendre une forme très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ lumineux venait se confondre avec un certain type de champ électromagnétique."

Also, one sincerely believes that, IF EINSTEIN'S 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE IS FALSE, SPECIAL RELATIVITY "WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED":

o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la condition de l'exploiter à fond."

www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...) The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."

groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relat...msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)."

www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyo...etical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801....bout-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum, both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths - one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate, as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.rese...msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts, Aug 16, 2010: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern physics would not be threatened.

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory."

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.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
pvalev@yahoo.com

Did Albert Einstein ever meet Max Planck? Then we'd know identity of the energy in the form of light can have an actual transfer function into the energy in the form of heat -- something in space and time. Woops it seems to be per Space and Time itself. And the wave. Too classical, man.


Light does not exist extensively statically through the space at a time. Heat must exist at the intensity of filling out space and throughout the changing times.

If an observer accelerates towards the wave source, wavecrests hit him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVE SPEED RELATIVE TO HIM HAS INCREASED.

This trivial truth is fatal for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so in Einsteiniana one is forced to sincerely believe in the following blatant lie:

If an observer accelerates towards the light source, wavecrests hit him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVELENGTH HAS DECREASED:

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."

Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink", are able to commute between the trivial truth and the blatant lie without difficulties. Silly Einsteinians tend to forget the trivial truth and universalize the blatant lie:

sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

Sometimes clever Einsteinians manage to bring silly Einsteinians under control - the above universalization of the blatant lie disappeared from the University of South Carolina's site recently, after I started citing it too often.

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.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
pvalev@yahoo.com

If the top of the tower emits light towards an observer on the ground, the wavecrests hit the observer more frequently (than they would in the absence of a gravitational field) because THE SPEED OF THE LIGHT HAS INCREASED.

Einstein explicitly stuck to this trivial truth and today's Einsteinians sincerely believe in it. However (it can be proved that) the trivial truth is fatal for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so in Einsteiniana one is forced to sincerely believe in the following blatant lie ("always one leap ahead of the truth"):

THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD:

www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles, one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed...)"

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian

math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativit.../speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general relativity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
If an observer accelerates towards the wave source, wavecrests hit him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVE SPEED RELATIVE TO HIM HAS INCREASED.

This trivial truth is fatal for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so in Einsteiniana one is forced to sincerely believe in the following blatant lie:

If an observer accelerates towards the light source, wavecrests hit him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVELENGTH HAS DECREASED:

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."

Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink", are able to commute between the trivial truth and the blatant lie without difficulties. Silly Einsteinians tend to forget the trivial truth and universalize the blatant lie:

sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

Sometimes clever Einsteinians manage to bring silly Einsteinians under control - the above universalization of the blatant lie disappeared from the University of South Carolina's site recently, after I started citing it too often.

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.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 wrote:
If an observer accelerates towards the wave source, wavecrests hit him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVE SPEED RELATIVE TO HIM HAS INCREASED.

This trivial truth is fatal for Einstein's 1905 false light postulate so in Einsteiniana one is forced to sincerely believe in the following blatant lie:

If an observer accelerates towards the light source, wavecrests hit him more frequently BECAUSE THE WAVELENGTH HAS DECREASED:

www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."

Only the cleverest Einsteinians, "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink", are able to commute between the trivial truth and the blatant lie without difficulties. Silly Einsteinians tend to forget the trivial truth and universalize the blatant lie:

sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

Sometimes clever Einsteinians manage to bring silly Einsteinians under control - the above universalization of the blatant lie disappeared from the University of South Carolina's site recently, after I started citing it too often.

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.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
pvalev@yahoo.com


Oh this is fun; we are presuming that you are substantially using the 'Huygens' wave. That does not yet determine the substantial nature of the light passing through space. Unless you mean that Space itself IS the substance for light propagation. The double belief occurs of waves which is in illusion for the stationary non-being. You believe in Nothing for the presence of the ground for the wave; the wave itself is a belief about something in movement through the distances of this vaccuous Nothing. BUT WE HAVE NO belief in the substantial being of light distinct of It's propagation. Therefore the doublethink is between being and nothing, not between the light traversing space and Space, the existing light of the awareness of appearance and awareness existence (of human sensation) in perspective lacking the direction spatially dimensioned being (described by euclidean or non-euclidean geometry). In fact your doublethink borrowed from George Orwell's rather humanistic topic has nothing to do with the light traveling in the direction of the ray of optical crests, but everything to do with ontological inventions to point out the mythical logic of explaining the deducable laws of Nature from the reflected contingencies of the process of believing Light was made aware to mankind for the observer per (it might have been System and system of the World for a Newtonian scenario of spatiality and dimensionality). In the relativity approach which could as well be Liebnitz's ideal space it may mean vaccuous nothing with or without measure in contradiction to extended Space Being metric to the specifications of the human Art. Contradiction? The absurd reduced to per REDUCTO AD ABSURDEM no longer is Existent. Contradiction? No, I can determine in mind.

And a moving observer is an impossible idea for that would mean, the MOVING Art of asserted ontology with respect to the dynamic perceiving emptying of space from all measurements accomplie.

Doublethink is much more dangerous for science than just falsehood. If Orwell had elaborated on his famous 2+2=5 scenario, he would certainly have described a terminal madness forcing one to sincerely believe in both 2+2=5 and 2+2=4, "with 2+2=5 always one leap ahead of 2+2=4":

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Needless to say, revolutions in science of Kuhnian type are impossible in the presence of doublethink. Consider, for instance, the situation in thermodynamics where one sincerely believes both that "were it not for the existence of irreversible processes, the entire edifice of the second law would crumble" and that "thermodynamics is concerned with reversible processes and equilibrium states...it can have nothing to do with irreversible processes or systems out of equilibrium":

philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink, Bluff your Way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, pp. 3-4

Such a "science" cannot be developed, either in a revolutionary or in an evolutionary way. It can only be taught to students who find learning by rote natural.

www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.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
pvalev@yahoo.com