https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/0...ng-relativity/

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 [NONEXISTENT] ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

"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

John Stachel: The constancy of the speed of light "seems to be nonsense":

"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 constancy of the speed of light IS nonsense. The reason why the frequency measured by the moving observer increases https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE is because the speed of the light pulses relative to him increases. No other reason is conceivable.

Einstein's constant-speed-of-light nonsense is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5. Mathematics automatically becomes insane after 2+2=5 is introduced - scientists unavoidably get trapped in idiotic "paradoxes". Exactly the same happened to fundamental physics in 1905:

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafÃ©s 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

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

In the next version of physics the original malignancy, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical 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

]]>

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 (which means that 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, 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

Einstein's idiocies killed physics but resurrection is possible (if it's not too late). See a suggestion for an Einstein-free physics here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Tous ces rÃ©sultats basÃ©s sur le faux principe de la variabilitÃ© de la vitesse de la lumiÃ¨re de Newton? Et si le principe n'est pas faux, aprÃ¨s tout?

En 1887 l'expÃ©rience de Michelson-Morley prouva, sans Ã©quivoque, que la vitesse de la lumiÃ¨re est VARIABLE comme prÃ©dit par la thÃ©orie de Newton:

James H. Smith, "Introduction Ã* la relativitÃ©", Ã©dition franÃ§aise dirigÃ©e par Jean-Marc LÃ©vy-Leblond, pp. 39-41: "Si la lumiÃ¨re Ã©tait un flot de particules mÃ©caniques obÃ©issant aux lois de la mÃ©canique, il n'y aurait aucune difficultÃ© Ã* comprendre les rÃ©sultats de l'expÃ©rience de Michelson-Morley..... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusÃ©e se dÃ©place avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport Ã* un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumiÃ¨re parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumiÃ¨re signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumiÃ¨re par rapport Ã* leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumiÃ¨re se dÃ©placeraient Ã* la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport Ã* l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout Ã* celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent Ã* une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se dÃ©veloppent et non pas Ã* une certaine vitesse par rapport Ã* leur source. (...) Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIÃˆRE SOIT INDÃ‰PENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPÃ‰RIMENTALE." https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-r.../dp/B003YEIA3S

Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativitÃ©, histoire d'une grande idÃ©e", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112: "De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiÃ¨re est constituÃ©e de particules, comme Einstein l'avait suggÃ©rÃ© dans son premier article, 13 semaines plus tÃ´t, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetÃ©e d'un train qui roule trÃ¨s vite fait bien plus de dÃ©gÃ¢ts que si on la jette d'un train a l'arrÃªt. Or, d'aprÃ¨s Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine particule ne serait pas indÃ©pendante du mouvement du corps qui l'Ã©met! Si nous considÃ©rons que la lumiÃ¨re est composÃ©e de particules qui obÃ©issent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront Ã* la relativitÃ© newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire de recourir Ã* la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou Ã* la transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'Ã©chec de l'expÃ©rience de Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, rÃ©sista cependant Ã* la tentation d'expliquer ces Ã©checs Ã* l'aide des idÃ©es newtoniennes, simples et familiÃ¨res. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou moins Ã©vident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'Ã©ther." https://www.decitre.fr/livres/la-rel...842450199.html

Wikipedia: "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 Michelsonâ€“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 Â± 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

]]>

Actually special relativity predicts the opposite: All along, the traveler sees his clock ticking off time VERY FAST compared to stationary clocks (he sees himself aging MUCH FASTER than stationary people):

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

The above two texts exposing the real prediction of special relativity are rare exceptions - Einsteinians almost universally teach Brian Greene's lie. But why should Einsteinians abuse their beloved theory? Because, if the real prediction is taught, the "twin paradox" clearly becomes "twin absurdity" and "the embarrassing question" will have to be answered:

"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://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Clock_Paradox

Pentcho Valev

]]>

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

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

The frequency and the speed of the light pulses, as measured by the moving observer, VARY PROPORTIONALLY; the wavelength (or distance between the pulses) is INVARIABLE.

This observation, generalized over all possible scenarios, will become The Fundamental Law of future, Einstein-free physics. Here is a deduction from the axioms (postulates):

Axiom 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Axiom 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Conclusion (The Fundamental Law): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is OBVIOUSLY false. Physicists know that and even try to tell the truth sometimes but there is a problem. Fundamental physics is entirely based on the false constancy and will collapse without it. In that regard telling the truth is suicidal:

"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

Fundamental physics will have to restart from scratch. See a possible restart in a series of tweets here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>

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

contradicts the principle of relativity: By measuring the varying wavelength, inside his spaceship, the emitter would know his speed without looking outside.

Einsteinians insist on the variability of the wavelength of light because INVARIABLE wavelength entails VARIABLE speed of light as per Newton:

"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 Michelsonâ€“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 Â± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

In future (Einstein-free) physics the wavelength of light will be invariable (The Fundamental Axiom); accordingly, the speed of light will be variable as per Newton:

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

"I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles." Richard Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter p. 15 https://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-T.../dp/0691024170

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

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 Â± 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 Michelsonâ€“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 Â± 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

So the variability, as per Newton, of the speed of light has been blindingly obvious since 1887.

Pentcho Valev

]]>

What happened in 1907? VoilÃ*:

John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf

Does "variable in the presence of a gravitational field" entail "variable in gravitation-free space"? Of course - the equivalence principle implies just that.

The metastases of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate killed physics - physicists have known that since 2001:

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafÃ©s 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

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html

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

The problem is that the truth, VARIABLE speed of light, will completely destroy today's fundamental physics. In that regard establishing the the truth is suicidal:

"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 [Joao Magueijo and Niayesh Afshordi] 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

So Einsteinians silently leave Einstein's sinking ship and promptly become experts in quantum mechanics, AI, biology, psychology, climate science etc. The ship seems empty now. Only Kip Thorne is still there - his money is too heavy:

http://c6.quickcachr.fotos.sapo.pt/i...2108_dBrrH.png

Pentcho Valev

]]>

"At a time when other scientists believed that the speed of light was variable, Einstein took it as a fixed limit of nature and made it the absolute non-negotiable around which all other variables and parameters enfolded."

https://www.brainpickings.org/2019/0...ng-relativity/

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 [NONEXISTENT] ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

"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

In the next version of physics the original malignancy, Einstein's 1905 false 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

]]>

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

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

The frequency and the speed of the light pulses, as measured by the moving observer, VARY PROPORTIONALLY; the wavelength (or distance between the pulses) is INVARIABLE.

This observation, generalized over all possible scenarios, will become The Fundamental Law of future (Einstein-free) physics. Here is a deduction from The Fundamental Axioms:

Axiom 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Axiom 2: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Conclusion (The Fundamental Law): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

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

Pentcho Valev

]]>

The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY variable, e.g. relative to the moving observer in this video

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

so "wrecking the whole thing" is unavoidable.

In the scenario shown in the video, frequency and speed of light, as measured by the observer, VARY PROPORTIONALLY while wavelength (or distance between pulses) is INVARIABLE.

This observation, generalized over any observer and any scenario, will become The Fundamental Law of future (Einstein-free) physics. Here is an equivalent formulation:

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

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets here:

https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

]]>