Einstein's Nonsense That Killed Physics

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

This does not SEEM to be nonsense; it IS nonsense. Obviously:

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

(Website: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html)

The speed of the light pulses relative to the source is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the source. The speed of the pulses relative to the observer is

c'= df' c

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

The fundamental nonsense of relativity explained in detail:

Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Irlq3TFr8Q

Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo discovered the truth in 2001:

"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

Pentcho Valev

The observer starts moving towards the emitter with speed v:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Frequency the observer measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ.

The wavelength (or distance between pulses) is INVARIABLE:

"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

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

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

The new axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

is correct and will be very fruitful in future theoretical physics (after Einstein's malignancies are removed). For the moment Einsteinians are still able to convince almost everybody, even antirelativists, that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf

It is implicit in this interpretation that a moving light source, just like a moving sound source, will measure the wavelength to be dependent on the speed of the source. This obviously contradicts the principle of relativity.. If the wavelength of light varied with the speed of the source, by measuring it the source would know its own speed "without looking out the window"..

See Zoe traveling towards Jasper and measuring the speed of light to be c:

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm

By using the same device, Zoe measures the wavelength and finds that it is INVARIABLE (independent of Zoe's speed). This means that Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c.

Since the wavelength is invariable, the speed of light varies with the speed of the source, as predicted by Newton's theory:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DzyndPsXgAEWeW2.png

Pentcho Valev

The new axiom

"Wavelength of light is invariable",

designed to replace Einstein's nonsensical axiom

"Speed of light is invariable",

is more than justified as one considers light falling in a gravitational field. The quotations below clearly show that the frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, as predicted by Newton's theory. This means that, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength), the wavelength is INVARIABLE:

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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

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

Pentcho Valev