THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS NOT CONSTANT

http://royal.pingdom.com/2015/05/12/...ws-of-physics/
"Thrust measurements of the EmDrive defy classical physics' expectations", said the researchers, who have been testing the highly controversial electromagnetic space propulsion technology. They posted on the Nasa Spaceflight forum that when lasers were fired into the EmDrive's resonance chamber, some of the laser beams had travelled faster than the speed of light..."

http://www.tek.com/blog/tek-pulse-la...ence-posts-113
"But recently, Paul March, a NASA engineer, successfully tested the EM Drive and was able to demonstrate that laser beams fired through the EM Drive's resonance chamber exhibited fluctuations in velocity. This resulted in some beams appearing to surpass the speed of light."

Paul March seems to be an unperson now - you cannot find his words on the Internet:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.4.html
George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

James Franson and Miles Padgett have also become unpersons, even though their works were published in the New Journal of Physics and Science respectively:

http://news.islandcrisis.net/2015/07...ght-is-slower/
"The scientific world is known for formulating theories which are sometimes accepted through confirmation by experiment and sometimes rejected and changed to more appropriate ones as new evidence sprouts forth. However, some theories have been firmly established and contesting them would seem quite peculiar. This is what physicist James Franson attempted to do. His paper published in the New Journal of Physics has created a buzz among physicists: he has brought evidence that implies that the speed of light as known by the theory of general relativity, which was phrased by Einstein, is not what it has always been thought to be. According to his results, the speed of light would be slower than the previous calculations.

Wrong Speed of Light = Everything is wrong about what we know of the universe

The theory of general relativity purports that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant at 299,792,458 metres per second. The speed of light is critical to a great number of other calculations when it comes to determinations concerning the universe. If this is wrong, imagine the domino effect that this would trigger, tumbling over other calculations as well."

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-fGNxxmSE
Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light

Challenging the constancy of the speed of light is the worst crime in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html
"The speaker Joao Magueijo, is a Reader in Theoretical Physics at Imperial College, London and author of Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. 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.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed - a constant that physicists denote by the letter c: 300,000 km per second, or as Americans refer to it, 186,000 miles per second. The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. (...) The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics."

http://happynicetimepeople.com/wp-co...peed-limit.jpg

Pentcho Valev

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, the countless demonstrations of superluminal motion get immediately forgotten:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-t...peed-of-light/
July 19, 2000: "For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances. (...) The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../406277a0.html
Nature 406, 277-279 (20 July 2000): "...a light pulse propagating through the atomic vapour cell appears at the exit side so much earlier than if it had propagated the same distance in a vacuum that the peak of the pulse appears to leave the cell before entering it."

How do Einsteinians manage to immediately forget such embarrassing results? By practicing crimestop of course:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

In Einstein's schizophrenic world, reports of superluminal motion (there are countless of them) usually involve some idiotic explanation of why Divine Albert's Divine Theory is not affected (sometimes a simple declaration, e.g. "it's not going to turn Einstein's theory on its head", is enough):

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fast-faster.html
"Scientists in PML's Quantum Measurement Division have produced the first superluminal light pulses made by using a technique called four-wave mixing, creating two separate pulses whose peaks propagate faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. (...) NIST scientists emphasized that, while the information detection could be advanced, no information could actually travel faster than the speed of light and that, consequently, principles like causality in special relativity were always respected in these experiments."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Light...d-267499.shtml
"The technique developed at NIST is called four-wave mixing, and it works by altering some parts of each individual light pulse. This makes the light move forward faster than it normally would when traveling through a vacuum.. (...) The physicists explain that the new research does not violate Albert Einstein's theory on general relativity - which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest achievable in the Universe. They say that a sort of loophole exists in this theory. By careful tuning of the light source and advanced calculations, it is possible to nudge portions of the light pulses so that they arrive at their destination ahead or behind the main pulse. (...) With four-wave mixing, the NIST investigators produced laser pulses that arrived at their destination a full 50 nanoseconds faster than photons traveling through a vacuum."

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/05/di...peed-of-light/
"According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, light travelling in a vacuum is the universal speed limit. That's a well-established rule - but it is one that scientists like to flirt with the idea of breaking. Including researchers at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who have been trying to exploit a loophole in the rule, that could see something travel faster than light. That thing is information, and the loophole relies on forcing one pulse to propagate through a second one. If the second pulse is moving at a speed close to the speed of light, it should in theory be possible to make the first one travel faster than the speed of light. Which is pretty much exactly what the researchers from NIST have done, if you read their paper in Physical Review Letters. (...) So yes, something did move faster than the speed of light, and it was real this time. And, yes, it is impressive in a very abstract physical science kinda way, but it's not going to turn Einstein's theory on its head, nor revolutionise physics. So I wouldn't get too excited."

http://phys.org/news182671620.html
"Astrophysicists, led by Frederick Jenet of the University of Texas at Brownsville, have been monitoring a pulsar, PSR B1937+21, which is about 10,000 light years from Earth. (...) They found that pulses closer to the center arrived earlier than the normal timing, which suggests they had travelled faster than the speed of light. (...) The faster-than-light pulses do not violate Einstein's theory because technically the pulse carries no information."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...basic-lab-kit/
"Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500. (...) While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ltt081905.php
"This is exactly what the EPFL team has demonstrated. Using their Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) method, the group was able to slow a light signal down by a factor of 3.6, creating a sort of temporary "optical memory." They were also able to create extreme conditions in which the light signal travelled faster than 300 million meters a second. And even though this seems to violate all sorts of cherished physical assumptions, Einstein needn't move over - relativity isn't called into question, because only a portion of the signal is affected."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's zombies are not liars - they are just programmed to repeat a few lies, without knowing what they are talking about:

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/08/1...exist-hint-no/
Brian Koberlein: "In the late 1800s Albert Michelson and Edward Morley performed an experiment hoping to measure the aether. They devised an experiment that would measure the speed of light in different directions. The idea was that since the Earth orbits the Sun, it must be moving relative to this aether, just as we can move through the air. That would mean the speed of light measured in the direction of Earth's orbit would be a bit slower than expected. In the opposite direction it would be a bit faster. Measuring the speed of light is hard, so Michelson and Morley used a clever trick that just measured the shift in light speed, but the end result is the same. Much to their surprise they found no observed shift in the speed of light. The solution to this mystery was eventually found in Einstein's theory of special relativity, which said there was no aether. Instead light had an absolute speed in all reference frames."

Other Einsteinians teach the same lie (the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same in all reference frames) but they are deliberate liars (at least some of them - others may be zombies like Brian Koberlein):

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

http://www.knetbooks.com/search-resu...&referrer=KBCJ
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2? (And Why Should We Care?), p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/710-53...3912045639 84
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light."

Did the Michelson-Morley experiment show that the speed of light is the same for all observers (in all reference frames)? Of course not:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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."

Pentcho Valev