Biconditional 1: The speed of light is constant as per Einstein if and only if the wavelength of light is variable (so that any frequency shift entails/is caused by an inversely proportional wavelength shift).

Biconditional 2: The speed of light is variable as per Newton if and only if the wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter.

Both the antecedent and the consequent in Biconditional 2 are correct. The consequent, "the wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter", will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics. Five important corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is static, not expanding.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

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

Nowadays all Einsteinians know that the speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON. Many of them silently leave Einstein's sinking ship and promptly become experts in quantum mechanics, AI, philosophy, consciousness, biology, meaning of life, climate science, anything:

https://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/...2108_dBrrH.png

If there is a next, Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

curvature, but also because of time dilation, the two basic tenets of

Relativity. Space curvature is easy to visualize, but not so much time

dilation. Here they visualize time dilation like fluid flow. You might

be surprised that most of the gravity we feel on Earth is from time

dilation, because we're not in orbit around the Earth.

https://youtu.be/F5PfjsPdBzg

]]>

now, I used to think tectonics started pretty much as soon as the Earth

was born, but apparently the Earth was still too hot in its interior to

start the plate tectonics process, though volcanism and other types of

subduction still happened. Apparently, tectonics started only 2 billion

years ago, less than half-way into its current age.

https://youtu.be/DI6SemRT2iY

]]>

because no light can escape them, obviously. However, in a bizarre

coincidence, two stellar mass BH's collided with each other, while they

were both also in orbit around a supermassive BH. the supermassive had

an accretion disk surrounding it, and the newly merged small BH crashed

through the accretion disk of the supermassive and sent a flare out of

the accretion disk.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/sci-te...B8pyZD2XWuKwDQ

]]>

the early universe. This is way bigger and formed way earlier than

scientists thought was possible!

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/po...U_1WYEyC QffU

]]>

time it will be an orbiter rather than a flyby. It will have all new

instruments, more appropriate for studying what was found after New

Horizons' flyby.

https://twitter.com/AstronomyMag/sta...768949760?s=20

]]>

Supernovae, and Magnetars may all be linked into one phenomenon: the

merging of two stars into one.

Merging stars may create the universe's most powerful magnets |

Astronomy.com

https://astronomy.com/news/2019/10/m...yIq5UPvl74biyQ

]]>

Nowadays Einstein's ideologues shamelessly teach this:

Ethan Siegel: "The speed of light doesn't change when you boost your light source. Imagine throwing a ball as fast as you can. Depending on what sport you're playing, you might get all the way up to 100 miles per hour (~45 meters/second) using your hand-and-arm alone. Now, imagine you're on a train (or in a plane) moving incredibly quickly: 300 miles per hour (~134 m/s). If you throw the ball from the train, moving in the same direction, how fast does the ball move? You simply add the speeds up: 400 miles per hour, and that's your answer. Now, imagine that instead of throwing a ball, you emit a beam of light instead. Add the speed of the light to the speed of the train... and you get an answer that's completely wrong. Really, you do! This was the central idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity, but it wasn't Einstein who made this experimental discovery; it was Albert Michelson, who's pioneering work in the 1880s demonstrated that this was the case." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...tal-surprises/

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Even Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment, but.... Einstein's ideology is all-powerful, able to suppress any truth:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

Logical biconditional:

The speed of light is variable as per Newton

if and only if

the wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter.

The second statement, "the wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter", will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics. Important corollaries:

Corollary 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Corollary 2: If the emitter and the observer (receiver) travel towards each other with relative speed v, the speed of light as measured by the observer is c' = c+v, as per Newton's theory.

Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes.

Corollary 4: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies - near Earth's surface the accelerations of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2. Accordingly, there is no gravitational time dilation - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is static, not expanding.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Asymmetric Time Dilation: Einstein's 1905 Second Sin https://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8299

Today's physics will be entirely destroyed, but:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Db9lfCaU0AA8Bjp.jpg

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-H.../dp/039335038X

Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc3-29dguFs

Michelle Thaller: "All of the universe shifts around this constant, the speed of light." https://youtube.com/watch?v=DO7J2YIz8tY

Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." http://www.cosmicyarns.com/2015/04/s...eed-limit.html

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-nutshell.html

Einstein's constancy of the speed of light - the nonsense on which fundamental physics is predicated - is imposed on physics students in the same uncompromising way as the name Bingo is imposed on the dude in this video:

Bingo the Clowno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ&t=78s

Fully brainwashed students get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano, become famous professors and sing hymns in praise of... Einstein's constancy of the speed of light:

Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www..youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Hawking's argument

"When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary"

is invalid. The antecedent, "the source...will be nearer to us", does not entail the consequent, "the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary". The wavelength of light, unlike the wavelength of sound, is constant (for a given emitter).

If the wavelength of light were variable, as shown in this video

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

the principle of relativity would be violated. By measuring the (varying) wavelength, inside his spaceship, the emitter would know his speed without looking outside.

Constant wavelength (the truth) entails, and is a corollary of, Newton's variable speed of light:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is ISAAC NEWTON. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

If there is a next, Einstein-free version of fundamental physics, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct and easily justifiable axiom

"For a given emitter, the wavelength of light is constant".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157

That was non sequitur (didn't follow from Einstein’s 1905 postulates) but the implication was TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - a breathtaking miracle (idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It's the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:31 here: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

Nowadays all Einsteinians know that the speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON. But there is no "next Great Revolution in Science" around the corner.. Rather, Einsteinians silently leave Einstein's sinking ship and promptly become experts in quantum mechanics, AI, philosophy, consciousness, biology, meaning of life, climate science, anything:

https://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/...2108_dBrrH.png

Only LIGO conspirators will go down with the ship. Their swindle is too recent and it would be difficult for them to convince the world that they are experts in, say, consciousness, like Max Tegmark, or quantum biology, like Jim Al-Khalili.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>