|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Axiomatic Approach in Fundamental Physics
Quotation: "The theory of special relativity is nothing more than two axioms:
1/ There is no preferred or absolute frame of reference. That means that velocity is not an absolute quantity, but must be referenced to something. 2/ All observers measure the same vacuum speed of light. From these two axioms, you can construct a logical chain of consequences, which are best performed using the language of mathematics. Nevertheless, the theory itself is just the two axioms stated above. Therefore, if you were to question the validity of the theory, you need only try to disprove one of the two axioms. The first axiom is quite robust. It was first posited by Galileo and is often referred to as Galilean relativity. It just boils down to the fact that we can add velocities, which most people have adopted as intuition. That means there is very little room to question the first axiom. The second axiom is usually where all the doubters like to hang their hats. A consequence of the second axiom is that time itself must be relative. Many people have trouble with this concept." [end of quotation] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-sp...ty-by-Einstein The second axiom is OBVIOUSLY FALSE: Stationary light source, moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.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. The metastases of Einstein's 1905 false axiom overwhelmed and eventually killed fundamental physics - it leads a zombie life nowadays: "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.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html Future physics will be based on the correct axiom "For a given emitter, he wavelength of light is invariable". Here are five important conclusions validly deducible from this axiom: 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: 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fundamental Physics as Ideology | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | March 7th 19 06:45 AM |
Fundamental Physics Reconciles 2+2=5 and 2+2=4 | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 17th 18 08:04 AM |
How Fundamental Physics Became an Ideology | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 6th 18 11:11 AM |
Fundamental Physics: Axiomatic or ... Not Even Wrong | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 3rd 18 09:56 AM |
Physics is fundamental wrong | Sarah Schwartz | Astronomy Misc | 134 | June 27th 04 02:16 AM |