Einstein-Free Physics: Is It Too Late?

New Scientist: "Must we topple Einstein to let physics leap forward again?" https://newscientist.com/article/mg2...forward-again/

New Scientist: "Is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article...steins-legacy/

Technically, "to free physics from Einstein's legacy" seems easy - you denounce Einstein's constant-speed-of-light malignancy and relativity, entirely predicated on the malignancy, automatically collapses. The problem is that the idiotic metastases of the malignancy (e.g. time travel) are now inherent in the culture of our civilization - removing them may produce a catastrophic psychological trauma and greatly accelerate the decline of the civilization. So, paradoxically, obeying the slogan "Divine Einstein Forever" may turn out to be the least harmful strategy:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/E...neEinstein.jpg

"Divine Einstein! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00

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

"The speed of light is constant"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

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

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

Pentcho Valev

The formula

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

implies that, if the speed of light is constant as per Einstein, any frequency shift entails (is causes by) a wavelength shift. This is too idiotic, even by the standards of the Einstein cult, and Einsteinians don't teach it explicitly. Some do, though:

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

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

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

Pentcho Valev