Dennis Overbye: "Is Albert Einstein finally dead? Yes. The old sage took his last breath and muttered his last indecipherable words, in German, on April 18, 1955. But lately he has been dying a second death, if one believes a new spate of articles and papers bemoaning the state of contemporary physics. Never mind the recent, staggering discovery of gravitational waves: ripples in space-time that Einstein predicted a century ago, and which indicate the universe is peppered with black holes that shred and swallow stars. Something much deeper than gravity or quantum theory, Einstein's other misbegotten legacy, is at stake." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/19/s...-universe.html

This "something much deeper", actually the founding principle of modern physics, is the constancy of the speed of light Einstein postulated in 1905. The postulate is false. The speed of light, as measured by the observer (receiver), either varies with the speed of the emitter (Newton's theory) or is invariable (ether theory and Einstein's relativity). Where is the truth? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Variability proved directly. Invariability, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", disproved:

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: "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

Note that, "without recourse to contracting lengths...", the invariable (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light is disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment while Newton's variable speed of light is proved.. The introduction of idiotic "contracting lengths" reverses the situation: now Newton's variable speed of light is disproved while the invariable speed of light, posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate, is gloriously proved. This blatant fraud marked the beginning of the post-truth era in science, long time ago.

The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:

Stationary light source; moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

Frequency measured by the source: f; frequency measured by the moving receiver: f' f.

Speed of pulses relative to the source: c = df (d is distance between pulses).

Speed of pulses relative to the moving receiver:

c' = df' c

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

In future physics Einstein's false axiom

"Speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"Wavelength of light is invariable".

So the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

will mean that ANY frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speed-of-light shift.

Three valid (truthfulness of the premises guarantees truthfulness of the conclusion) arguments:

Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion 1: 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.

Conclusion 2: 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. Gravitational time dilation does not exist - Einstein's general relativity is absurd.

Conclusion 3: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev