Speed of Light: BBC Brainwashes the Gullible World

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...ter-than-light
Chris Baraniuk, BBC: "We are told that nothing can travel faster than light. This is how we know it is true (...) ...a man named Albert Einstein. His theory of special relativity explores many of the consequences of these universal speed limits. One of the important elements in the theory is the idea that the speed of light is a constant. No matter where you are or how fast you are travelling, light always travels at the same speed. But that creates some conceptual problems."

Speed of light independent of the speed of the observer: The primary conceptual problem this idea creates is that it is obviously absurd. Any interpretation of the Doppler effect proves, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ. (...) RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT. These results depend on the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general) there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity. (...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving, then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a γ factor: f'=(1+v/c)γf..."

That is, according to the above interpretations,

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

when v is low (relativistic corrections are negligible), and

f' = γf(1+v/c) = γ(c+v)/λ

when v is high (relativistic corrections are not negligible). Accordingly, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer is

c' = c+v

when v is low, and

c' = γ(c+v)

when v is high. Einstein's relativity is violated in either case.

Here are explicit refutations of the absurd idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"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."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...ter-than-light
Chris Baraniuk, BBC: "...special experiments with individual photons have managed to slow them down by altering their shape. Still, for the most part it is fair to say that light travels at 300,000km/s."

For the most part? There is some unfairness but it is negligible? Bravo Chris Baraniuk, bravo BBC!

The inconstancy of the speed of light has been abundantly proved in various experiments:

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.."

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."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ut-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-t...peed-of-light/
"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."

Pentcho Valev

There are two fundamental lies in Einstein schizophrenic world:

1. Einstein took the constancy of the speed of light from Maxwell's 19th century electromagnetic theory which had predicted that the speed of light relative to the observer does not depend on the speed of the observer. (The truth is that Maxwell's theory had predicted the opposite - the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer.)

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment had given empirical support to the constancy of the speed of light.

Here is how the BBC propagates the first fundamental lie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkv1CeKiUds
BBC Documentary - Secrets Inside Einstein's Mind

My comment on YouTube:

At 6:46 Einsteinians start explaining that, according to Maxwell's 19th century theory, the speed of light was the same for all observers (did not depend on the speed of the observer). This is a blatant lie - at least one of the narrators in this BBC documentary, John Norton, knows the truth (but has found it profitable not to expose the lie):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

How can the BBC allow such doublethink to be broadcast?

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:20:24 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160...ter-than-light
Chris Baraniuk, BBC: "We are told that nothing can travel faster than light. This is how we know it is true (...) ...a man named Albert Einstein. His theory of special relativity explores many of the consequences of these universal speed limits. One of the important elements in the theory is the idea that the speed of light is a constant. No matter where you are or how fast you are travelling, light always travels at the same speed. But that creates some conceptual problems."

Speed of light independent of the speed of the observer: The primary conceptual problem this idea creates is that it is obviously absurd. Any interpretation of the Doppler effect proves, explicitly or implicitly, that the speed of light relative to the observer VARIES with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ. (...) RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER EFFECT. These results depend on the absolute velocities of the source and observer, not just on the relative velocity of the two. That seems odd, but is allowable as sound waves are waves in a medium, and motion relative to the medium may legitimately matter. But for light (or EM radiation in general) there is no medium, and this must be wrong. This needs relativity. (...) If the source is regarded as fixed and the observer is moving, then the observer's clock runs slow. They will measure time intervals as being shorter than they are in the rest frame of the source, and so they will measure frequencies as being higher, again by a γ factor: f'=(1+v/c)γf..."

That is, according to the above interpretations,

f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/λ

when v is low (relativistic corrections are negligible), and

f' = γf(1+v/c) = γ(c+v)/λ

when v is high (relativistic corrections are not negligible). Accordingly, the speed of the light relative to the moving observer is

c' = c+v

when v is low, and

c' = γ(c+v)

when v is high. Einstein's relativity is violated in either case.

Here are explicit refutations of the absurd idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"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://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"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."

Pentcho Valev

I agree that the Doppler effect is undeniable proof that the speed of light relative to the observer is not constant.

Dne 20/06/2016 v 20:22 Louis Savain napsal(a):

I agree that the Doppler effect is undeniable proof that the speed of light relative to the observer is not constant.


Then you do not understand nature of the Doppler effect,
as it occurs for constant wave speed wrt the observer as well.


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 20/06/2016 v 20:22 Louis Savain napsal(a):

I agree that the Doppler effect is undeniable proof that the speed of light relative to the observer is not constant.


Then you do not understand nature of the Doppler effect,
as it occurs for constant wave speed wrt the observer as well.

I don't disagree. My understanding is that there are two ways to create the Doppler effect, both of which assume Galilean relativity. I personally believe that Galilean relativity is the only possible type of relativity. It assumes the existence of absolute motion and position. The reason that the speed of light is always measured to be c relative to the observer has to do with the fact that the speed of light is an inherent part of the way our instruments work. It's like using a ruler to measure itself: you always get the same answer regardless of shrinkage or expansion. A measured value is both a function of the phenomenon being measured and the instrument used to measure it. Relativists always ignore this point. I wonder why.

The incessant relativist mantra (propaganda really) that there is only relative motion or position in the universe is a brain-dead claim because it results in a self-referential universe. It is not even wrong.

Dne 20/06/2016 v 23:25 Louis Savain napsal(a):
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 20/06/2016 v 20:22 Louis Savain napsal(a):

I agree that the Doppler effect is undeniable proof that the speed of light relative to the observer is not constant.


Then you do not understand nature of the Doppler effect,
as it occurs for constant wave speed wrt the observer as well.

I don't disagree. My understanding is that there are two ways to create the Doppler effect, both of which assume Galilean relativity. I personally believe that Galilean relativity is the only possible type of relativity. It assumes the existence of absolute motion and position. The reason that the speed of light is always measured to be c relative to the observer has to do with the fact that the speed of light is an inherent part of the way our instruments work. It's like using a ruler to measure itself: you always get the same answer regardless of shrinkage or expansion. A measured value is both a function of the phenomenon being measured and the instrument used to measure it. Relativists always ignore this point. I wonder why.

The incessant relativist mantra (propaganda really) that there is only relative motion or position in the universe is a brain-dead claim because it results in a self-referential universe. It is not even wrong.

Such a believe is refuted by many experiments,
so the mantra is rather what the denialists say.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 9:12:41 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 20/06/2016 v 23:25 Louis Savain napsal(a):
On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 1:29:16 PM UTC-7, Poutnik wrote:
Dne 20/06/2016 v 20:22 Louis Savain napsal(a):

I agree that the Doppler effect is undeniable proof that the speed of light relative to the observer is not constant.


Then you do not understand nature of the Doppler effect,
as it occurs for constant wave speed wrt the observer as well.

I don't disagree. My understanding is that there are two ways to create the Doppler effect, both of which assume Galilean relativity. I personally believe that Galilean relativity is the only possible type of relativity. It assumes the existence of absolute motion and position. The reason that the speed of light is always measured to be c relative to the observer has to do with the fact that the speed of light is an inherent part of the way our instruments work. It's like using a ruler to measure itself: you always get the same answer regardless of shrinkage or expansion. A measured value is both a function of the phenomenon being measured and the instrument used to measure it. Relativists always ignore this point. I wonder why.

The incessant relativist mantra (propaganda really) that there is only relative motion or position in the universe is a brain-dead claim because it results in a self-referential universe. It is not even wrong.

Such a believe is refuted by many experiments,
so the mantra is rather what the denialists say.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

Yeah. OK. Whatever.