The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON, which implies that Einstein's spacetime does not exist and neither do LIGO's gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime). LIGO fakers still feel safe, protected by the all-powerful ideology imposed by the Einstein cult, but in the long run they are doomed..

The scientific community is so brainwashed that it does not react even when high priests in the Einstein cult admit this:

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "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

Philip Ball: "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

"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

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

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

"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/

"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

So spacetime "is not there in the next version of physics", but LIGO's ripples in spacetime are there, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat (otherwise LIGO fakers will have to go to jail):

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....1J-7PIffiL.jpg

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Here a 80m long rod is trapped in a 40m long barn, but the idiocy goes much further: Einstein's nonsensical constant-speed-of-light postulate entails that unlimitedly long objects can gloriously be trapped, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers.

Einstein's relativity is immeasurably more idiotic than, say, flat-earth myths. And yet Einsteinians have the impudence to deride flat-earthers, to accuse politicians of dishonesty, etc. Albert Einstein is the founder of post-truth (post-sanity) science.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ek9V0MIW0AIlhxQ.jpg

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"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

"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

"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

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

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

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

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency measured by the moving observer.

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

There is a generic trouble that converts the "many severe tensions" into red herrings. Cosmology is fatally predicated on Einstein's constant-speed-of-light falsehood (nonsense):

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-S.../dp/0738205257

"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

"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

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/a...t-speed-slowed

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

"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

"The speed of light is variable as per Newton"

is equivalent to

"The wavelength of light is constant for a given emitter"

The latter proposition will become the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics (if the death of physics is not irreversible).

Is the new axiom correct? Judging from the three scenarios below, (A), (B) and (C), it is:

(A) The observer starts moving relative to the emitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. The wavelength (distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant. Accordingly, the frequency and the speed of the pulses VARY proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

(B) The emitter starts moving relative to the observer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M. It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure its varying value, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his spaceship's speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter. Accordingly, the speed of the light and the frequency, as measured by the stationary observer, VARY with the speed of the emitter, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

(C) Light falls in a gravitational field. The frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, and accordingly the wavelength remains constant. This is clearly shown in the following two texts:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. SO lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

"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

Five important corollaries of the constant-wavelength-of-light axiom:

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

]]>

"The faster you travel, the slower time appears to pass."

This is both nonsense (appears to whom?) and non sequitur (doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates). Here is what validly follows from the postulates:

The faster you travel, the slower your time appears to pass to stationary people, and the FASTER your time appears to pass to yourself, as you check stationary clocks your spaceship pass against your spaceship's clocks.

"“We know from Einstein’s special theory of relativity that when a clock moves relative to another clock, the time shown on it slows down,” Smith says."

Smith doesn't know what he is talking about. It follows from Einstein's 1905 postulates that the time shown on the moving clock slows down only as judged from the stationary clock's system. As judged from the moving clock's system, however, the time shown on the moving clock SPEEDS UP (compared with the time shown on the stationary clock).

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Question: "What is the greatest Physics experiment that has ever been done and why is it so good?" Jim Al-Khalili: "For me it was an experiment carried out by two Americans in the early 1950s and regarded as one of the classic tests of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Their names were Robert Pound and Glen Rebka and they proved that gravity really slows time down." https://www.harriswestminstersixthfo...al-khalili-obe

David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed. [...] This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf

"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/

"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye." http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years

Yet there are cracks in the Einsteinian ideology:

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

Banesh Hoffmann (p. 139): "The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768

The gravitational redshift, as measured in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment, proves that the speed of light falling in gravity varies as per Newton (near Earth's surface the acceleration of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2). This implies that GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION DOES NOT EXIST:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

"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, issue 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

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"Just two seconds later" and "the same location of the sky" implies that gravitational waves and gamma rays traveled hand in hand: same gravitationally deflected path, same speed, same Shapiro delay, same blockage by cosmic matter.

The last implication is particularly idiotic. If at some point in space gamma rays are absorbed and don't continue their journey, the accompanying gravitational waves don't continue their journey either.

LIGO fakers still feel safe but soon they will have to go to jail. The fraud is too obvious to be eternally ignored.

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

The more-than-a-century reign of the insane ideology called "Einstein's relativity" is by far the biggest waste of money in the history of science. Time for relativists to answer "the embarrassing question":

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with THE EMBARRASSING QUESTION OF WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...91720902741399

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../406277a0.html

"The speed at which light travels through a vacuum, about 186,000 miles per second, is enshrined in physics lore as a universal speed limit. Nothing can travel faster than that speed, according to freshman textbooks and conversation at sophisticated wine bars; if anything could, Einstein's theory of relativity would crumble, and theoretical physics would fall into disarray.. Two new experiments have demonstrated how flexible or misleading that comfortable wisdom can be in the right circumstances. Using a combination of atomic and electromagnetic effects, researchers have produced light beams in the laboratory that appear to travel much faster than the normal speed of light. Einstein's theory survives, physicists say, but the results of the experiments, they agree, are mind-bending. In the most striking of the new experiments a pulse of light that passes through a transparent chamber filled with specially prepared cesium gas appears to be pushed to speeds of 300 times the normal speed of light. That is so fast that, under these peculiar circumstances, the main part of the pulse exits the chamber even before it enters. [...] But Einstein's theory, and at least a shred of common sense, seem to survive, the physicists explain, because the effect could never be used to signal back in time to change the past and, in the example, avert the accident." https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/30/s...he-future.html

The Einstein cult: Einstein's relativity survives "because the effect could never be used to signal back in time to change the past". Einsteiniana is the most idiotic ideology in the history of humankind, a major factor in the decline of our civilization.

Still the idiocy cannot go on forever. Relativists admitted a few days ago:

"In the six decades since Hartman's paper, no matter how carefully physicists have redefined tunneling time or how precisely they’ve measured it in the lab, they've found that quantum tunneling invariably exhibits the Hartman effect. Tunneling seems to be incurably, robustly superluminal." https://www.quantamagazine.org/quant...ight-20201020/

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Two implications can be drawn from the above text (Feynman would not accept them of course). The first implication is obvious - the speed of light is variable as per Newton, as originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz introducing, ad hoc, contracting lengths) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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

"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

The second implication sounds too strained but it could be justified independently of the light-is-made-of-particles assumption. Nothing in a flying particle would become longer or shorter if the emitter (or receiver) starts moving, or if the particle falls in a gravitational field. So the wavelength of light, no matter how it relates to the particle model, remains constant (for a given emitter).

Hence the fundamental axiom of future, Einstein-free physics:

The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).

Is the new constant-wavelength-of-light axiom correct? Judging from the three scenarios below, (A), (B) and (C), it is:

(A) The observer starts moving relative to the emitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. The wavelength (distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant while the frequency and the speed of the pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

(B) The emitter starts moving relative to the observer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M. It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure it regularly, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter.

(C) Light falls in a gravitational field. The frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, and accordingly the wavelength remains constant. This is clearly shown in the following two texts:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. SO lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

"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

Five important corollaries of the constant-wavelength-of-light axiom:

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

]]>

"Recent experiments show that particles should be able to go faster than light" https://quantamagazine.org/quantum-t...ight-20201020/

Time to answer "the embarrassing question":

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with THE EMBARRASSING QUESTION OF WHY THIS HAD NOT BEEN NOTICED EARLIER. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1...91720902741399

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Oh l* l*! LIGO fakers are in trouble. But they are doomed even without Claudia de Rham's speculations. Einstein's general relativity does not predict that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light - Einstein fabricated the "prediction" by means of a sleight of hand:

Arthur Eddington: "If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130-131 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-.../dp/0521091659

Arthur Eddington: "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." http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...6/268.full.pdf

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Natalie Wolchover: "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161...-time-problem/

Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/re...essons-quantum

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."

https://render.fineartamerica.com/im...david-mack.jpg

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>