A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 11th 19, 07:26 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light

"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

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

Joao Magueijo: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

"You want to go back to a notion of space-time that preceded the 20th century, and it wants to ignore the essential lessons about space-time that the 20th century has taught us." Joao Magueijo: "Yes, that's right. So it's nouveau-Newtonian." At 53:29 he http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=16060116

Special relativity is a deductive theory so if it is "the root of all the evil", if space-time is to be broken, retired etc, then an axiom (postulate) must be false. It is highly unlikely that the falsehood is the principle of relativity - the only reasonable suggestion is:

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

The problem is that the truth - variable speed of light, as per Newton - will completely destroy fundamental physics. Things will have to restart from scratch:

"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 [Niayesh Afshordi and Joao Magueijo] 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

Awful dilemma, isn't it? Afshordi and Magueijo are honest enough but still they beat about the bush a bit, so in this tweet

https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev/st...89439147859970

I tried to define the dilemma as clearly as possible. The tweet received a like from... Niayesh Afshordi!

Do we need the truth, even though it will completely destroy fundamental physics? Yes we do:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dsi1me8WsAANyer.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old March 11th 19, 11:35 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light

The formula

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

says that a frequency shift entails either a wavelength shift or a speed-of-light shift.

"Any frequency shift entails a wavelength shift" is an implication of Einstein's 1905 axiom "The speed of light is invariable". The implication is obviously absurd - e.g. when the observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source, the frequency he measures changes but the wavelength (or the distance between the light pulses) remains invariable:

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

The absurdity of the implication means that the underlying axiom, "The speed of light is invariable", is false.

"Any frequency shift entails a speed-of-light shift" is an implication of the axiom "The wavelength of light is invariable". This axiom is correct and will be fundamental in future physics. Here is an equivalent formulation:

Any light source emits INVARIABLE wavelength.

Four 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 speed-of-light 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: 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, gravitational time dilation does not exist - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Conclusion 4: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is STATIC, not expanding.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 11th 19, 03:28 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light

Einstein's constancy of the speed of light is implicitly underpinned by an idiotic fudge factor. Consider the following scenario:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. The speed of the pulses relative to a stationary receiver is c, and the frequency the receiver measures is f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:

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

The receiver starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the speed of the pulses relative to him shifts from c to c'=c+v, and the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=c'/d:

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

Einsteinians accept the frequency shift from f=c/d to f'=c'/d (there are relativistic corrections which, if v is small, are negligible), but do not accept the speed-of-light shift from c to c'=c+v. However, if there is no speed-of-light shift and and the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver remains invariable, c'=c, then an unavoidable implication is that

the distance between the pulses shifts from d to d'=dc/(c+v).

That is, the speed of light will remain invariable only if the motion of the receiver miraculously changes the distance between incoming pulses! Einstein's relativity is much more idiotic than, say, flat-earth myths.

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old March 11th 19, 08:00 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Revolution in Fundamental Physics: Variable Speed of Light

The nonsense that killed physics (made it insane):

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

The speed of light, as measured by Gracy the Receiver, OBVIOUSLY VARIES with Gracy's speed. Here is Gracy running towards George the Emitter:

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

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

The speed of the light pulses as measured by George the Emitter is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by George. The speed of the pulses as measured by Gracy the Receiver is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by Gracy.

Einstein knew that the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but found it profitable to introduce it:

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

Space and time were vandalized accordingly. They had to combine into an idiotic centaur called "spacetime", to fit the nonsensical constancy of the speed of light introduced by Einstein:

"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...rs-of-gravity/

So in 1905 the post-sanity era in science began. Nowadays 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Variable Speed of Light: the Next Great Revolution in Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 March 4th 19 07:23 AM
Variable Speed of Light: the Most Dangerous Truth in Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 8th 19 06:54 PM
Variable Speed of Light: Fatal to Physics Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 January 30th 18 12:14 PM
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT OR VARIABLE WAVELENGTH? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 June 2nd 12 06:14 PM
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT: FUNDAMENTAL THEOREMS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 April 29th 10 02:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.