Impending Resurrection of Fundamental Physics

Apocalyptic descriptions of a malignant axiom pervading and eventually killing the whole branch of science called physics:

"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/Faster-Than-S.../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 formula

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

allows the introduction of two axioms that push physics in opposite directions:

Axiom 1 (Einstein's physics): The speed of light is constant. Immediate corollary (obviously absurd): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) an inversely proportional wavelength shift.

Axiom 2 (Einstein-free physics): The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter). Immediate corollary: Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light shift.

Axiom 1, false and even nonsensical, killed physics (converted it into an insane ideology).

Axiom 2, correct and easily justifiable, will resurrect physics (if it's not too late). Its immediate corollary will become the fundamental law of the new science.

Five important corollaries of Axiom 2:

Corollary 1 (the fundamental law of future physics): Any frequency shift entails (is caused by) a proportional speed-of-light 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.

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Fundamental physics was killed in 1905. That is, the root of all the evil is special relativity, or, more precisely, Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

"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." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

"[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. [...] Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task." https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/

"...Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html

Joao Magueijo, Niayesh Afshordi, Stephon Alexander: "So we have broken fundamentally this Lorentz invariance which equates space and time [...] It's the other postulate of relativity, that of constancy of c, that has to give way..." https://youtu.be/kbHBBtsrU1g?t=1431

As the above quotations show, physicists do try to tell the truth sometimes but there is a problem. The farce called "fundamental physics" is entirely predicated on Einstein's constant-speed-of-light falsehood and will collapse without it. In this regard, telling the truth is suicidal:

"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...t-speed-slowed

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Obviously variable (Newtonian) speed of light:

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

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between the pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer is

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the moving observer.

If judged by their speed alone, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light VARIES, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles (e.g. bullets):

"Emission theory, also called Emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, 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

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

See https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The fundamental axiom of future (Einstein-free) physics: The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).

Is the axiom correct? Let us consider three scenarios:

(A) The observer starts moving 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 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 know his speed (which would be inversely proportional to the wavelength) 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 Urbana-Champaign: "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

See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The fundamental axiom of future (Einstein-free) physics: The wavelength of light is constant (for a given emitter).

Is the axiom correct? Let us consider three scenarios:

(A) The observer starts moving 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 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 Urbana-Champaign: "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

See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev