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




Obviously Variable Speed of Light
Stationary light source; moving receiver: http://www.einsteinonline.info/imag...ector_blue.gif
(Website: http://www.einsteinonline.info/spotlights/doppler.html) The speed of the light pulses relative to 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 relative to the receiver is c'= df' c where f' f is the frequency measured by the receiver. Einstein knew that the constancy of the speed of light was nonsense but found it profitable to introduce it. Space and time were vandalized accordingly (to fit the nonsensical constancy) and the posttruth (postsanity) era in science began: 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 Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Obviously Variable Speed of Light
Does the speed of light depend on the motion of the light source? Or is it independent? The answer was given, implicitly, in 1887. Dependence directly confirmed. Independence, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", disproved:
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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 MichelsonMorley 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." https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 Pentcho Valev 
#3




Obviously Variable Speed of Light
Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order"  triumph of posttruth (postsanity) science:
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything  you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft  shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/DeathBlackH.../dp/039335038X Michelle Thaller (52:06): "The speed of light is so constant that the universe actually changes everything so that you never see it going any other speed" https://youtu.be/fiv7qUQ51Kc?t=3126 Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...nutshell.html Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Speed of Light: Obviously Variable  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  April 5th 18 01:45 PM 
Variable Speed of Light  How Serious Is This?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  November 13th 17 09:13 PM 
Speed of Light: Obviously Variable  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  August 3rd 17 07:09 PM 
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT OR VARIABLE WAVELENGTH?  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  June 2nd 12 06:14 PM 
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT OR VARIABLE WAVELENGTH?  Tonico  Astronomy Misc  0  May 31st 12 04:36 PM 