If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics
"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 welldefined 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/FasterThanSp.../dp/0738205257
Special relativity is based on two axioms. One of them  Einstein's false constantspeedoflight postulate  is actually the root of all the evil in physics. The metastases of the falsehood overwhelmed and killed this branch of science: "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 Physicists know that Einstein's 1905 constantspeedoflight postulate is false and even hint at the truth sometimes: "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...tspeedslowed Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander 2018: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431 Magueijo, Afshordi and Alexander, as mainstream professors, beat about the bush a bit, so in this tweet https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev/st...89439147859970 I tried to define the situation as bluntly as possible. The tweet received a like from... Niayesh Afshordi! Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics
The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY VARIABLE:
Stationary light source, moving receiver: http://www.einsteinonline.info/imag...ector_blue.gif The speed of the light pulses as measured by 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 as measured by the receiver is c'= df' c where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver. In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the MichelsonMorley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=cÂ±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein: 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 MichelsonMorley 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/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c Â± v, explains the result of the MichelsonMorley 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 Pentcho Valev 
#3




Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics
Einstein in conflict with his conscience as he introduces obvious nonsense:
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 Brian Greene: What does it mean for the speed of light to be constant? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irlq3TFr8Q Space and time were vandalized accordingly  to fit the nonsensical constancy  and physics died (became insane): "Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/20...rsofgravity/ Today's physics is much more insane than, say, flatearth myths. For instance, Einsteinians gloriously jump, within a minute of their experienced time, sixty million years ahead in the future, and trap unlimitedly long objects, in a compressed state, inside unlimitedly short containers: Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf https://pbs.twimg.com/media/De9fBJwWkAEMaXZ.jpg "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. [...] So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. [...] If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be TRAPPED IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg Pentcho Valev 
#4




Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics
Zoe (the emitter) travels towards Jasper (the receiver) and measures the speed of light to be c:
https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm Let us imagine that, by using the same device, Zoe measures the wavelength of the light. Does the wavelength vary with Zoe's speed, or is it invariable? If Zoe were emitting sound waves, she would find that the wavelength does vary with her speed. Then how about the wavelength of light? Physics wrongly teaches that the wavelength of light, just like the wavelength of sound, VARIES with the speed of the emitter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M 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 This variation of the wavelength of light contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, by measuring it, Zoe would know how fast she is moving, without any reference to outside objects. The wavelength of light is INVARIABLE. Since the wavelength does not vary with Zoe's speed, Jasper measures the speed of light to be c'=c+v, not c: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0U6R1RXgAEbxnQ.png Conclusion: The speed of light is VARIABLE; the wavelength of light is INVARIABLE. The last statement, by replacing Einstein's 1905 false constantspeedoflight axiom, will one day become the fundamental axiom of physics. Five important conclusions validly deducible from the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable": Premise 1: The wavelength of light is invariable. Premise 2: The formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct. Conclusion 1: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a speedoflight shift. Conclusion 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. Conclusion 3: Spacetime is an absurdity. Gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist  LIGO conspirators fake them. Conclusion 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. Conclusion 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding. Pentcho Valev 
#5




Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics
Einstein and Feynman fraudulently teach that, if the moving observer measures the speed of light to be variable, c'=cv, the principle of relativity is violated. They conclude that the moving observer will measure the speed of light to be invariable, c'=c:
Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c  v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then  so it seems  a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other  in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princet.../vol6trans/16 Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dtu, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be cu. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed  they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html Here is the correct argument: A railway carriage is traveling at speed v. An emitter at the back end of the carriage sends a light beam towards the front end. A device at the front end of the carriage measures the speed of the beam. Assumption: The speed of the light beam is measured to be c'=cv. Conclusion: The assumption contradicts the principle of relativity and should be rejected. The speed of the light beam is measured to be unchanged, c'=c. On the surface, Einstein and Feynman use the same argument (draw the same conclusion) but the devil is in the detail. They fraudulently change the location of the emitter  it is no longer on the moving vehicle (carriage or car). In the scenario of Einstein and Feynman the emitter belongs to the stationary system  e.g. it is fixed on the embankment. This makes the argument INVALID. Pentcho Valev 
#6




Constant Speed of Light: the Root of All the Evil in Physics
The speed of light is obviously variable so it is not easy to convince students that it is constant:
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einste...eird_logic.htm Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order"  the triumph of posttruth (postsanity) education: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything  you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft  shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/DeathBlackH.../dp/039335038X Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea  that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc329dguFs Michelle Thaller (52:06): "The speed of light is so constant that the universe actually changes everything so that you never see it going any other speed" https://youtu.be/fiv7qUQ51Kc?t=3126 Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." http://www.cosmicyarns.com/2015/04/s...eedlimit.html Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...nutshell.html Musical brainwashing: Lisa Randall, Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www..youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI Constancy of the speed of light  the nonsense on which the whole fundamental physics is based  is imposed on physics students in the same way as the name Bingo is imposed on the dude in this video: Bingo the Clowno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ&t=78s In the end each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn97_m9XsAID8En.jpg Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Einstein's False ConstantSpeedofLight Postulate: the Root of Evilin Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  February 14th 19 08:32 PM 
Einstein's Light Postulate: the Root of All the Evil in Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  July 8th 17 12:53 PM 
The constantspeedoflight falsehood that killed physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  January 7th 17 02:56 PM 
THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL IN PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  May 22nd 15 07:18 AM 
NO PHYSICS IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  4  June 20th 13 01:37 PM 