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




Physics Predicated on a Nonsensical Axiom
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
Wrestling "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" in order to introduce an axiom that "seems to be nonsense", "borrowed" from the ether theory? Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Einstein managed to camouflage an aspect of the nonsense by vandalising space and time, but another aspect, related to Doppler effect, remained blatantly obvious. Frequency increases for moving observer https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE because THE SPEED OF THE LIGHT PULSES RELATIVE TO HIM INCREASES. No other reason exists. Physics predicated on a nonsensical axiom: "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... 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." https://www.amazon.com/FasterThanS.../dp/0738205257 "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 "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 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 See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Physics Predicated on a Nonsensical Axiom
The fundamental axiom of future, Einsteinfree physics (if the death of physics is not irreversible):
The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter). Is the axiom correct? Judging from the three scenarios below, it is: (A) The observer starts moving relative to the emitter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE. The wavelength (distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant while the frequency and the speed of the pulses vary proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. (B) The emitter starts moving relative to the observer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M. It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure it regularly, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter. (C) Light falls in a gravitational field. The frequency and the speed of falling light vary proportionally, and accordingly the wavelength remains constant. This is clearly shown he University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "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 217, 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 Five important corollaries of the new axiom: Corollary 1 (the fundamental law of future physics): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speedoflight shift. Corollary 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, as per Newton's theory. Corollary 3: Spacetime and gravitational waves (ripples in spacetime) don't exist. LIGO's "discoveries" are fakes. Corollary 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. Corollary 5: The Hubble redshift is due to light slowing down as it travels through vacuum. The universe is static, not expanding. More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  August 16th 19 08:04 PM 
Einstein's 1905 Nonsensical Axiom  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  April 23rd 19 07:19 AM 
Einstein's Nonsensical Axiom That Killed Physics  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  April 18th 19 09:15 AM 
Fundamental Physics Killed by Einstein's 1905 Axiom  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  November 30th 18 11:15 AM 
The Whole of Physics is Predicated on the Constancy of the Speed of Light  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  November 17th 17 09:57 AM 