https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs

The speed of light the moving observer measures is either variable, c'=c-v, or invariable, c'=c.

Einstein and Feynman fraudulently teach that, if the moving observer measures the speed of light to be variable, c'=c-v, the principle of relativity is violated:

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princet.../vol6-trans/16

Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

The argument used by Einstein and Feynman is invalid, but physicists are unable to see the invalidity. They would not even think in this direction:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." http://ebooks..adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter2.9.html

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Two obvious fakes in the above scenario:

Fake 1: Gravitational waves and optical signals came from "the same location" of the sky.

Fake 2: They arrived simultaneously.

"The same location" is absurd. Gamma rays undergo gravitational deflection, and "the same location" implies that gravitational waves are deflected in exactly the same way, which is nonsense of course. LIGO godfathers were quite careless in 2017 - they shouldn't have faked neutron-star-collision gravitational waves. Given the 2017 "same location" fake, any subsequent neutron-star-collision scenario involves an insoluble dilemma:

If "the same location" is reconfirmed, LIGO godfathers will have to explain why gravitational waves undergo exactly the same gravitational deflection as light signals. Hopeless business - the conclusion that LIGO godfathers fake gravitational waves will be unavoidable.

If "the same location" is abandoned and gravitational waves and optical signals start coming from different directions, LIGO godfathers will have to explain how "the same location" occurred in 2017 - again, the conclusion that they fake gravitational waves will be unavoidable.

The simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves in the GW170817 case is another obvious fake. Even if gravitational waves existed (they don't), the simultaneous arrival would be absurd, for the following two reasons:

1. That gravitational waves travel at the speed of light was Eddington's 1922 fabrication - nothing to do with Einstein's general relativity:

Arthur Eddington 1922: "The problem of the propagation of disturbances of the gravitational field was investigated by Einstein in 1916, and again in 1918. It has usually been inferred from his discussion that a change in the distribution of matter produces gravitational effects which are propagated with the speed of light; but I think that Einstein really left the question of the speed of propagation rather indefinite. His analysis shows how the co-ordinates must be chosen if it is desired to represent the gravitational potentials as propagated with the speed of light; but there is nothing to indicate that the speed of light appears in the problem, except as the result of this arbitrary choice. [...] Weyl has classified plane gravitational waves into three types, viz.: (1) longitudinal-longitudinal; (2)longitudinal-transverse; (3) transverse-transverse. The present investigation leads to the conclusion that transverse-transverse waves are propagated with the speed of light in all systems of co-ordinates. Waves of the first and second types have no fixed velocity - a result which rouses suspicion as to their objective existence." http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...6/268.full.pdf

2. The simultaneous arrival of optical signals and gravitational waves presupposes that the gravitational waves experience Shapiro delay, like optical signals, which is nonsense. This text is fraudulent:

"In general relativity and other metric theories of gravity, though, the Shapiro delay for gravitational waves is expected to be the same as that for light and neutrinos." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay

Recently LIGO godfathers announced a second "discovery" of neutron-star-collision gravitational waves. They have bypassed "the same location" insoluble dilemma in this fraudulent way:

"But one of LIGO's twin detectors was offline Thursday when the gravitational wave reached Earth, making it hard for astronomers to triangulate exactly where the signal was coming from. That sent astronomers racing to image as many galaxies as they could across a region covering one-quarter of the sky." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-...n-star-merger/

"In this case, unlike many others, LIGO and Virgo were unable to significantly narrow down the direction in the sky that the waves came from. The researchers could say only that the waves were from a wide region that covers roughly one-quarter of the sky." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01377-2

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article...of-space-time/

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." https://www.newscientist.com/article...-need-it-back/

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-C.../dp/B00AEGQPFE

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"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 53:29 here: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

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

New Scientist: "Must we topple Einstein to let physics leap forward again?" https://www.newscientist.com/article...forward-again/

Scientific American: "For a crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid. [...] It is of course entirely plausible that the validity of general relativity breaks down much closer to our own home than at the edge of the hypothetical end of the universe. And if that were the case, today's multilayered theoretical edifice of the big bang paradigm would turn out to be a confusing mix of fictional beasts invented to uphold the model... [...] Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything - they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines where and how to observe. [...] Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general relativity. [...] The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification. In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-big-problems/

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ure-of-physics

In the next version of physics, the original malignancy, Einstein's 1905 false, nonsensical and fatal for physics axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0520115657.htm

and also on other icy moons...

]]>

Kip Thorne (4:56): "If you move toward the source [of light], you see the wavelength shortened, but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

"The wavelength shortened" is an idiotic fudge factor that preserves the nonsensical constancy of the speed of light and saves Einstein's relativity. Here is more detail:

The observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source with speed v:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

If you are an Einsteinian and your entire life depends on the nonsensical constancy of the speed of light, you should believe (or pretend to believe, like Kip Thorne) that the motion of the observer changes the distance between incoming pulses - from d to d'=dc/(c+v). Equivalently, you should believe that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v).

Needless to say, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light:

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...ml/node41.html

"By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

The fudge factor - the motion of the observer changes the wavelength of the incoming light - is too idiotic, even by the standards of Einstein cult, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly. Here are exceptions - Einsteinians who explicitly discuss the idiocy (these Einsteinians are particularly deranged and teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength even in the case of sound waves):

http://bretagnemontagne.files.wordpr...2011/02/23.jpg

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. [...] The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/...plershift.html

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html

Pentcho Valev

]]>

At 9:01 in the above video Sarah sees the train falling through the hole - an event obviously impossible in Adam's reference frame. We have reductio ad absurdum - it follows from Einstein's postulates that an event happening in Sarah's frame is absent in Adam's. Relativity should be abandoned but .... there is always salvation in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Einsteinians save their "science" by introducing an idiotic fudge factor - they teach that in Adam's frame the train undergoes a breathtaking bending (disintegration), as shown at 9:53 in the video and in this picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._variation.PNG

We have reductio ad absurdum again: An idiotic bending (disintegration) is required - it occurs in Adam's reference frame but doesn't in Sarah's.

Conclusion: The underlying premise, Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, is false.

Pentcho Valev

]]>

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

The nonsense impregnated the whole of physics and this science became immeasurably more insane than flat-earth myths:

"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

Nowadays physicists gloriously jump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years ahead in the future, and trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers:

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De9fBJwWkAEMaXZ.jpg

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DafYwspX0AAixYo.jpg

Pentcho Valev

]]>

A mind-blowing explanation of the speed of light | Michelle Thaller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO7J2YIz8tY

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

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

Constancy of the speed of light - the nonsense on which the whole fundamental physics is based - is imposed on physics students in the same 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

In the end each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano.

The famous Bingo Quintet:

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DafYwspX0AAixYo.jpg

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"Time goes slower for you than for the people you left behind... [...] Professor Brian Cox demonstrated this idea during a BBC Doctor Who special, using a member of the audience to help – Professor Jim Al-Khalili. He set up the Professor in a moving chair across the stage, with a beam of light moving up and down. "Moving clocks run slower – this is true – time really did pass at a different rate for Jim than it did for you.. There is no sleight of hand here, Jim really is a time-traveller." https://newsflash.one/2019/05/10/tim...-its-possible/

There is a huge sleight of hand here. According to Einstein's special relativity, Jim Al-Khalili, the space-traveler, sees his clock running FASTER than stationary clocks, and therefore he is no time-traveler at all:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

"The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] ...the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Einstein's relativity was toppled in 1887, before it was created. In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev

]]>

A mind-blowing explanation of the speed of light | Michelle Thaller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO7J2YIz8tY

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

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

Constancy of the speed of light - the nonsense on which the whole fundamental physics is based - is imposed on physics students in the same 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

In the end each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano.

The famous Bingo Quintet:

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

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DafYwspX0AAixYo.jpg

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..." https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369

Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. [...] Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another in order to come up with a unified theory that reconciles the disparate worlds of quantum mechanics and gravity - one the most pressing challenges to modern physics." https://www.newscientist.com/article...of-space-time/

New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century." https://www.newscientist.com/article...-need-it-back/

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas..." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-C.../dp/B00AEGQPFE

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013...reality-review

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

"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 53:29 here: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

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

New Scientist: "Must we topple Einstein to let physics leap forward again?" https://www.newscientist.com/article...forward-again/

Scientific American: "For a crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid. [...] It is of course entirely plausible that the validity of general relativity breaks down much closer to our own home than at the edge of the hypothetical end of the universe. And if that were the case, today's multilayered theoretical edifice of the big bang paradigm would turn out to be a confusing mix of fictional beasts invented to uphold the model... [...] Today's space telescopes provide no direct view of anything - they produce measurements through an interplay of theoretical predictions and pliable parameters, in which the model is involved every step of the way. The framework literally frames the problem; it determines where and how to observe. [...] Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general relativity. [...] The crux of today's cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification. In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...-big-problems/

"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." http://discovermagazine.com/2014/jan...ure-of-physics

In the next version of physics, the original malignancy, Einstein's 1905 false, nonsensical and fatal for physics axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

So Einstein "borrowed" his constant-speed-of-light axiom from the theory of the nonexistent ether, knowing that, in 1887, prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz introducing the ad hoc contracting lengths, the Michelson-Morley experiment had unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproved the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light posited by the ether theory (c'=c):

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Here is something interesting about a neutron star falling in to a black hole.

the gravitational force on the near side of an object exceeds that of the far side of an object, because gravity decreases with distance. this is called the TIDAL FORCE. For people on the surface of Earth, the tidal forces between head and feet are negligible. However, Earth exerts significant tidal forces on the Moon, despite the Moon being further away, due to the Moon's size.

before we begin, let us calculate the force (in solar mass miles per second squared) exerted by a 1.5 solar mass, 12-mile radius neutron star upon a 0.001 solar mass "slice" on the surface.

In cubic miles per solar mass per second squared, the GRAVITATIONAL CONSTANT is

3.18479 E 10

The gravitational force of a neutron star upon its surface is

3.18749 E 10*1.5*0.001/12^2=33,030.2083 solar mass miles per second squared.

What happens if the neutron star's near side if forty-five miles from the center of a black hole with eight solar masses?

The black hole's pull on a 0.001 solar mass slice on the near side is

3.18749 E 10*8*0.001/45^2=125,925.5309 solar mass miles per second squared.

The far side is twenty-four miles from the near side, so the force exerted on the far side is

3.18749 E 10*8*0.001/69^2=53,560.0084 solar mass miles per second squared.

The tidal force is the difference. 125,925.5309-53560.0084= 72,365.5225 solar mass miles per second squared.

The tidal force exceeds the gravitational force of the neutron star itself, so the neutron star had already been torn apart.

an interesting thing happens. Neutron stars have this tremendous outbound pressure, called NEUTRON DEGENERACY PRESSURE. Only gravity from the neutron star's high mass and small size keeps the thing together. If a 1.5 solar mass neutron star is torn apart by tidal forces, then the pieces will not have enough mass to counteract the neutron degeneracy pressure, and they will explode. Some of the material will fall into the black hole, and some will escape to infinity. It is possible that the explosion of a neutron star fragment could create heavy elements, like the neutron star collision did.

for a 1.5 solar mass neutron star falling into an 8 solar mass black hole, when do tidal forces tear the neutron star apart? It has to be when the tidal force equals the neutron star's gravity. Using n as the near distance, we must solve these equations for n.

3.18749 E 10*8*0.001/n^2-3.18749E10*8*0.001/(n+24)^2=254,999,200/n^2-254,999,200/(n+24)^2=254,999,200(1/n^2-1/(n+24)^2=33,030.2083 solar mass miles per second squared.

1/n^2-1/(n+24)^2=1/n^2-1/(n^2+48n+576)=0.000129531 per mile squared per second squared.

1-n^2/(n^2+48n+576)=0.000129531n^2

n^2+48n+576-n^2=48n+576=0.000129531n^2(n^2+48n+576)=0.00012953 1n^4+0.006217488n^3+0.074609856n^2

0.000129531n^4+0.006217488n^3+0.074609856n^2-48n-576=0

We only need to solve the quartic. We get n=61.59325 miles (61 mi, 1044 yd, just under 100 km) So it is around sixty miles from an 8 solar mass black hole that a 1.5 solar mass neutron star with a 12-mile radius would start to break apart before its pieces explode.

But what about a supermassive black hole? Let us take the example of a 4 million solar mass black hole. The radius is

2*3.18749 E 10*4000000/186282^2=7,348,471.833 miles

The tidal forces across this same neutron star, at the event horizon, are

3.18749 E 10*4000000*0.001/7,348,471.833^2-3.18749 E 10*4000000*0.001/(7,348,471.833+24)^2=1.54226E-5 solar mass miles per second squared. Thuis is much less than the force betweeen the neutron star and a 0.001 solar mass sliver at the surface.

So the neutron star will enter the black hole in one piece. It will eventually be torn apart as it plunges towards the center, but no one outside the hole will observe it.

Michael

]]>

In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, as the traveling clock (twin) turns around and experiences acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field emerges. This homogeneous gravitational field somehow affects the distant stay-at-home clock and makes it run very fast (the stay-at-home twin suddenly gets very old) during the turning-around period:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

Einstein's 1918 idiocy was a crucial fudge factor that saved the "theory". Without recourse to "enough strangeness" (see David Morin's text above), Einstein's relativity predicts that either twin will find his brother younger when they reunite after the trip.

Einsteinians do teach Einstein's 1918 idiocy but never mention the "homogeneous gravitational field" - it is too idiotic, even by the standards of Einstein cult:

Richard Feynman: "So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker.. It's during this period of acceleration that you become the older twin." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERgwVm9qWKA

Pentcho Valev

]]>